NationStates Jolt Archive

Ah, but once Objectivism is instituted, each person will be able to develop technology free from government interference. Thus, someone of average intellect, who is willing to work hard, will develop a disintigrator ray, cloaking device, and memory-eraser, and benefit from their own labor by being able to kill people rather than take a slight step to the left.

Funny, but the whole 'get back to our primitive, non-technological roots, strip off our evil clothing' idea is not exactly a Libertarian one. If there are indeed libertarians who advocate it, they just stole it from the Amish.

Anyway it's not necessary to make strawmen to debate this topic, or strawmen accounts either. ;)

Because, obviously, everyone will pay more for the same service
Because, obviously, if you earn $75 (0.09 oz) and pay $25 (0.03 oz) in tax, you get less money than if you earn $75 and pay no tax.


Why would there be 'more market interactions'? People are going to buy more food than they can eat, just because the government doesn't tax it?
See the example.

People are going to hire each other more whenever it can save time, so they have more time left to do productive work.


Finite resources will become infinite, just because you and I work more productively?
In a sense. Extra productivity will allow for partial replacement of these resources with renewable ones.

If I spend it on a car, car value is produced. If the government spends it on a road, what do we have to show for it?
Roads to drive on? o.o

Government isn't INHERENTLY incompetent; it generally tends to be a bit less efficient than competing businesses responding to immediate incentives, but governments CAN get things done. Public pressure tends to help them get to it.

Odd that you claim to value productivity so much yet are spending time on a webforum @ Vault 10

If I spend it on food myself, it goes to produce food.
If the government uses it to buy food for a poor child, no food is produced.
The food has already been produced either way.

However, if the government simply gives food to the poor child while it becomes a teen, an adult, a senior, and out, there's no extra production.

OTOH, if the government puts that child into an education and employment program, there is extra production when the child grows up enough to work.


If I spend it on a plane ticket, aerospace is produced. If the government commissions a company to design and build a jet, nothing is produced.
Some thousands of dead people are produced, because the only jet a government needs is one that carries weapons.

OTOH, if the government puts that child into an education and employment program, there is extra production when the child grows up enough to work.


You need taxes either way.

Funny, but the whole 'get back to our primitive, non-technological roots, strip off our evil clothing' idea is not exactly a Libertarian one. If there are indeed libertarians who advocate it, they just stole it from the Amish.

Anyway it's not necessary to make strawmen to debate this topic, or strawmen accounts either. ;)

Objectivism isn't a Libertarian idea either. I'm not Libertarian, and neither are my followers. We're Objectivist. There's quite a difference.

I wasn't the one who suggested killing the one in the way, I"m just saying that it, like everything, would be easier, with Objectivism.

Odd that you claim to value productivity so much yet are spending time on a webforum @ Vault 10
BTW, I've just closed a deal on EURCAD at 1.6372, that's a 180 pips drop. Just thought you'd like to know.

Seems it's still going down, however.

The food has already been produced either way.

However, if the government simply gives food to the poor child while it becomes a teen, an adult, a senior, and out, there's no extra production.

You are correct, because people will not happily produce food as long as the government is paying for it, only if private citizens are paying for it.

That child will grow up to a parasite and never get a job if the government gives him food.


OTOH, if the government puts that child into an education and employment program, there is extra production when the child grows up enough to work.

Education and employment programs? Oh, now I must disagree. Those things could come from government, and government should be hands-off.

If you start spending government money to help people get jobs and education, that's basically social spending by government. What you're suggesting is bad.


Some thousands of dead people are produced, because the only jet a government needs is one that carries weapons.

Exactly. The government produces only killing jets, and the technology and industry that results from that does nothing for commercial and public applications. Jets themselves didn't come from military research, airliner pilots weren't trained to fly by the military. Now we're back on the same page.

However, if the government simply gives food to the poor child while it becomes a teen, an adult, a senior, and out, there's no extra production.

Giving food to poor food-insecure pregnant women often increases the cognitive flculties. The same with giving food to poor children. The latter also lowers the likelihood of obesity, poor people often roughly maximize the number calories per dollar spent and fat can help one during the lean times. All this results in extra production when the child becomes an adult. Also, I believe that hungry adults are less productive. So increased production there too.

You are correct, because people will not happily produce food as long as the government is paying for it, only if private citizens are paying for it.

That child will grow up to a parasite and never get a job if the government gives him food.
o.o This has to be an act; are you a joke account?

o.o This has to be an act; are you a joke account?

Well duh.

o.o This has to be an act; are you a joke account?

Goddammit, why do people keep fucking thinking that the idea of the Ghost of Ayn Rand materializing on nationstates to defend Objectivism has to be some kind of joke?

BTW, I've just closed a deal on EURCAD at 1.6372, that's a 180 pips drop. Just thought you'd like to know.

Seems it's still going down, however.
Hmm? I don't really know what you're referring to, but I haven't really been following the conversation. I'm just saying that I find it a tad contradictory to see productivity-centric arguments on a webforum, when the prescence on a webforum doesn't seem to mix with that. Granted, though, it does help one learn things to be debating them, and as someone who's doing two economics courses this semester it's not completely wasteful to me. Don't know what it is about your circumstances that makes this compatible though.

Instead of making a reservation for liberty, I suggest dragging the mercantilists out into the local stadium to have them shot for treason.

Goddammit, why do people keep fucking thinking that the idea of the Ghost of Ayn Rand materializing on nationstates to defend Objectivism has to be some kind of joke?

Because she would never come visit this hive of scum and villainy. It's not that you're joking, since obviously you're not really her ghost, it's that you're an imposter. I don't care how you do things in the afterlife or what punishments there are for impersonation but it's not very nice.

Because, obviously, if you earn $75 (0.09 oz) and pay $25 (0.03 oz) in tax, you get less money than if you earn $75 and pay no tax.
Does this not assume you would never see that $25 back in public services (under any governmental system which taxes)?

Goddammit, why do people keep fucking thinking that the idea of the Ghost of Ayn Rand materializing on nationstates to defend Objectivism has to be some kind of joke?
Because ghosts are imaginary, and even a hypothetical ghost of Ayn Rand would probably rather go onto the news than a webforum?

I'm hoping this is only some kind of Poe's Law or something. o.o

Because she would never come visit this hive of scum and villainy. It's not that you're joking, since obviously you're not really her ghost, it's that you're an imposter. I don't care how you do things in the afterlife or what punishments there are for impersonation but it's not very nice.

Objectivism is not about being nice, its about rational self-interest.

If Libertarians are getting a reservation, then my people, the Objectivists, deserve a permanent room in the student union building, and right of first refusal on expired pizza after campus events.

Because ghosts are imaginary, and even a hypothetical ghost of Ayn Rand would probably rather go onto the news than a webforum?

You...actually answered...the question. Including a scenario...for a hypothetical ghost...explaining why she/it wouldn't come here.

Well, I'm already dead, but I think now I still have to kill myself.

Does this not assume you would never see that $25 back in public services (under any governmental system which taxes)?
Well, everybody knows tax is theft. You get nothing back for your tax dollars. No roads. No armies. No laws or courts. No public schools. No police. No fire departments. No libraries. Nothing. Pure waste.

Objectivism is not about being nice, its about rational self-interest.

If Libertarians are getting a reservation, then my people, the Objectivists, deserve a permanent room in the student union building, and right of first refusal on expired pizza after campus events.

It doesn't apply if you're dead. And again, how stupid do you think I am - just because you're a ghost you think I'll believe you're Ayn Rand's ghost? I'm sorry but you don't even smell like her.

It doesn't apply if you're dead. And again, how stupid do you think I am - just because you're a ghost you think I'll believe you're Ayn Rand's ghost? I'm sorry but you don't even smell like her.

I'll buy that, but only because you correctly applied the tenet of Objectivism that the senses are the way to perceive and know reality.

Now, just learn that A = A, and you'll realize why if the goverment takes a percentage and uses it to build infrastructure and provide services, production just disappears somewhere.

Hmm? I don't really know what you're referring to, but I haven't really been following the conversation.
I've sold Canadian Dollars (CAD) for Euro just four days ago, and now exchanged Euro back for CAD on FOREX. [I don't handle actual paper Euro and CAD, only use a computer terminal to sell and buy them, in amounts larger than my deposit, with a credit leverage provided by the broker.]

Since CAD has fallen noticeably in the last 4 days, the Canadians have just become slightly poorer, and I've just become slightly richer at Canada's expense.


I'm just saying that I find it a tad contradictory to see productivity-centric arguments on a webforum, when the prescence on a webforum doesn't seem to mix with that. Granted, though, it does help one learn things to be debating them, and as someone who's doing two economics courses this semester it's not completely wasteful to me. Don't know what it is about your circumstances that makes this compatible though.
You're doing theoretical economics courses? Then you certainly should know about stock and currency exchange and start spending time working with them; it will sort of be the economic practice course. Plus, while the stock market is down, FOREX never collapses, so it pays as well as ever.

I've sold Canadian Dollars (CAD) for Euro just four days ago, and now exchanged Euro back for CAD on FOREX. [I don't handle actual paper Euro and CAD, only use a computer terminal to sell and buy them, in amounts larger than my deposit, with a credit leverage provided by the broker.

There you go, that's the ticket.

The government spending its percentage on infrastructure, services, and research results in no production, but currency exchange...now THAT leads to increased production.

Does this not assume you would never see that $25 back in public services (under any governmental system which taxes)?
It doesn't, it merely states that you'll have more money without taxes - obviously, you'll also have to spend more money then, to get private services instead of the lost public ones.

Whether the government or the private industry are more efficient is another question, the libertarian position is that it's the latter.

It doesn't, it merely states that you'll have more money without taxes - obviously, you'll also have to spend more money then, to get private services instead of the lost public ones.

Whether the government or the private industry are more efficient is another question, the libertarian position is that it's the latter.

And certainly, it has to be one or the other. There's no way that with all the complexities of balance, economies of scale verses diminishing returns, the benefits of being organized verses the perils of an organization, there's no way that sometimes it one, other times the other.

Government is just bad, and should back off. Corporations, especially when unregulated, are the real source of efficiency.

but currency exchange...now THAT leads to increased production.
The only thing fiat currency is good for is extracting money out of currency exchange markets. It works like self-winding watch, as the market moves up and down, you absorb this energy.
The money extracted, of course, comes from the smartass governments who decided they'll print their own monopoly money instead of using USD like normal people do.

Although there's a good part to it, currency exchange quickly reacts to the news, and leads to rapid devaluation of currency in countries with weak economy, and strengthening of that in countries with strong economy.

There is no 'extra' money. The value of goods and services would decrease to meet the status quo

Wealth is not dictated by the amount of money one possesses, but rather by the amount of utility he possesses.

Because he's the wrong skin color/religion/sexual orientation?
Because the market doesn't recognize his hard work?
Because the market doesn't value his hard work?
Because he had a horrible accident and can't work anymore?
Because he was born with birth defects and can't work as hard as other people?
Because there are many many other men willing to work just as hard as he is?

etc.

Truly. How dare I be disabled?!? Well put, Jello.

The only thing fiat currency is good for is extracting money out of currency exchange markets. It works like self-winding watch, as the market moves up and down, you absorb this energy.

Because naturally, energy, something inherently conserved, is a great analogy for production. You clearly are familiar with my works.


The money extracted, of course, comes from the smartass governments who decided they'll print their own monopoly money instead of using USD like normal people do.

Exactly. What kind of dumbass country doesn't want to use the US Dollar.


Although there's a good part to it, currency exchange quickly reacts to the news, and leads to rapid devaluation of currency in countries with weak economy, and strengthening of that in countries with strong economy.

And it certainly results in more production than, say, government funded infrastructure!

Education and employment programs? Oh, now I must disagree. Those things could come from government, and government should be hands-off.
They don't really have to come from governments. You probably mistakenly assume that employment here means giving an option of employment. It doesn't.


The government produces only killing jets,
Neither Boeing nor Airbus are government-owned.


Jets themselves didn't come from military research, airliner pilots weren't trained to fly by the military.
You miss the fact that the government didn't do that research and didn't train the pilots with the personal wealth of the President. It did it with the money taken from the people and the businesses.

With a small government, the aerospace industry and the airlines would have to spend more money on research and training, but they'd have to pay less taxes.

It doesn't, it merely states that you'll have more money without taxes - obviously, you'll also have to spend more money then, to get private services instead of the lost public ones.
Right, so it's a bit disingenuous to say that'll you'll have more money, without also saying you'll have more outgoings.

Whether the government or the private industry are more efficient is another question, the libertarian position is that it's the latter.
Quite.

They don't really have to come from governments. You probably mistakenly assume that employment here means giving an option of employment. It doesn't.

No, I took you to mean that it was training or other programs designed to make them more employable. That's still a government service that has to be payed with tax dollars, remember?


Neither Boeing nor Airbus are government-owned.

And naturally, neither has ever gotten government money for contracts! And even if they did, it wouldn't matter, because production funded with goverment money isn't production anymore, evidently!


You miss the fact that the government didn't do that research and didn't train the pilots with the personal wealth of the President. It did it with the money taken from the people and the businesses.

Actually, no, that wasn't a "fact I was missing", it was the "point I was making".

That research and training come from tax money. That was honestly, seriously, the entire point. That those things are a kind of production, of knowledge and expertise, demonstrating that production comes from government spending.


With a small government, the aerospace industry and the airlines would have to spend more money on research and training, but they'd have to pay less taxes.

Which is consistent with the point that government taxation and spending can result in the same production that is ostensibly lost by taxes, and in a way that reflects the public good instead of merely shareholder good.

I guess the satire wasn't the best format for conversation with you.

Because naturally, energy, something inherently conserved, is a great analogy for production.
I desperately need a new car, and the fiat money system was created to be exploited. Sometimes I wonder if there even was any other reason for it, or it was deliberately created just for that.
Also, I have a proper productive job, this is just how I make up the amount I'm underpaid by.


Exactly. What kind of dumbass country doesn't want to use the US Dollar.
You might believe how many of them are out there, but you certainly won't believe how much money they are milked for every year.

First, in futile attempts to appear independent and sovereign, they print worthless, backed-by-nothing paper. Then they throw out billions of hard-earned (by non-renewable resources export) USD to people who want to exchange that paper for money, in an attempt to keep its exchange rate higher than its purchasing power is. That's where we come in, take a massive credit of this paper in their own bank, and kindly take advantage of the offer.

Eventually they run out of USD, everyone keeps trying to turn in their monopoly money, and its worth plummets. To the very bottom, until it's even lower than its purchasing power. That's where we come out and kindly sell them back now so highly coveted USD, taking enormous amounts of their monopoly money for it, and paying back the loan with what's now worth just a few dollars.



And it certainly results in more production than, say, government funded infrastructure! It results in moving money into better hands.
Also, you're a troll.

I desperately need a new car, and the fiat money system was created to be exploited. Sometimes I wonder if there even was any other reason for it, or it was deliberately created just for that.
Also, I have a proper productive job, this is just how I make up the amount I'm underpaid by.

Ah, of course. As long as you have a productive day job, you fix underpayment by doing something non-productive that you blame the government for, in your next paragraph.

So if the government does something productive, like research and infrastructure, thats not production, but if you do something not productive, its okay, because you need a car.

I wonder if other segments of the society have needs...and if they were to take advantage of a government caused situation...just like you're doing...what would they be called?


You might believe how many of them are out there, but you certainly won't believe how much money they are milked for every year.

First, in futile attempts to appear independent and sovereign, they print worthless, backed-by-nothing paper. Then they throw out billions of hard-earned (by non-renewable resources export) USD to people who want to exchange that paper for money, in an attempt to keep its exchange rate higher than its purchasing power is. That's where we come in, take a massive credit of this paper in their own bank, and kindly take advantage of the offer.

Eventually they run out of USD, everyone keeps trying to turn in their monopoly money, and its worth plummets. To the very bottom, until it's even lower than its purchasing power. That's where we come out and kindly sell them back now so highly coveted USD, taking enormous amounts of their monopoly money for it, and paying back the loan with what's now worth just a few dollars.

It results in moving money into better hands.
Also, you're a troll.

Of course, better hands being yours.

I'm not a troll, I'm pre-eminent Russian American Philosopher Ayn Rand, and you are clearly familiar with my works!

No, I took you to mean that it was training or other programs designed to make them more employable. That's still a government service that has to be payed with tax dollars, remember?
I meant it as giving not just an opportunity, but an obligation of employment.

In private version, with part of the wage deducted to pay back the initial investment.


And naturally, neither has ever gotten government money for contracts!
They did, but government money is your money.
If they didn't, they'd get your money (from tickets) for contracts anyway.


Which is consistent with the point that government taxation and spending can result in the same production that is ostensibly lost by taxes,

Yes, it can. However, less efficiently, with more bureucracy.

Furthermore, it can never compensate for the deadweight loss which stems from the reduced number of transactions due to tax discouragement. The deadweight loss is not redistribution of GDP, but its reduction.

Oh yes, the Soviets tried that, execpt it was everyone that didn't like the new government. They called it a gulag.

if you do something not productive, its okay, because you need a car.
Well, you are doing something not productive here too, by posting on the forum. Consuming server time and all that.

My free time, my choice.


I wonder if other segments of the society have needs...and if they were to take advantage of a government caused situation...just like you're doing...what would they be called?
Speculators.


Of course, better hands being yours.
It pretty much goes without asking. Lots of guys keep their Porsches just for riding the city with a cool look. I need one because I've driven a few and they handle like no other car, and I need it to have an own car for amateur racing.

I meant it as giving not just an opportunity, but an obligation of employment.

In private version, with part of the wage deducted to pay back the initial investment.

Ah, compulsory employment, through the government. Now that leads to productive people...



They did, but government money is your money.
If they didn't, they'd get your money (from tickets) for contracts anyway.

Gee, so they'd get money either way? And be able to use it to run their business and produce, either way? Hm...sounds familiar. I think somebody was making that point earlier.



Yes, it can. However, less efficiently, with more bureucracy.

Yes, of course. Big corporations are super efficient, no bureaucracy. The people hired to run a company can't ever be as inefficient or corrupt as the people we elect. Ayn Rand totally agrees.


Furthermore, it can never compensate for the deadweight loss which stems from the reduced number of transactions due to tax discouragement. The deadweight loss is not redistribution of GDP, but its reduction.

Well of course...if people kept the money, there would be X number of transactions.

But if the government takes some, and spends Q on infastructure, which goes to engineering and construction firms, and spends R on research, which goes to scientists and developers, and S on Administrators and Bureaucrats, who take their paychecks home and then spend it into the economy, and T on roads, the contractors of which have employees, who in turn spend the money...the all of that HAS to be less than X transactions. I just has to be!

At least try to make the argument that, whether its more production or not, people should be able to spend what they earn, not have more taken for the public good.

That's more sound than claiming that five dollars given to a contractor by the government, then spent by him and his employees is somehow not as useful as five dollars given by me to Wal-mart and then spent by their shareholders, management and employees...

Well, you are doing something not productive here too, by posting on the forum. Consuming server time and all that.

My free time, my choice.

Oh, but you were decrying declined production! Now, though, your choice to engage in an income method with no production is fine, but those people out there who get income from the goverment in supposed loss of production, that's bad. Bad when they do it.

And server time....hmm...advertisors?


Speculators.

Ah, so when you do it, an unproductive thing resulting from government mismanagement, you're a "speculator". When a guy takes a government contract to build a road for everyone to drive on, he's "unproductive". Gotcha.


It pretty much goes without asking. Lots of guys keep their Porsches just for riding the city with a cool look. I need one because I've driven a few and they handle like no other car, and I need it to have an own car for amateur racing.

Of course. That's a need, and you can naturally satisfy it by exploiting what you say is an unproductive policy of bad goverments.

As for those who couldn't eat, get health care, or get educated without the services that taxes allow for, they don't really NEED those things. Not like you need a Porsche.

Of everyone on this board, you clearly best understand rational self interest.

I'm pre-eminent Russian American Author Ayn Rand, and you, Vault 10, are the most familiar with my works!!!!

WIth that, I'm going to bed.

Ah, compulsory employment, through the government. Now that leads to productive people...
I got mine.


Gee, so they'd get money either way? And be able to use it to run their business and produce, either way?
Yes, the only difference is that with private money, they'd use it to produce passenger and cargo aircraft, while with gov't money, they use most to produce weapons.

Passenger aircraft are a greater public good than bombers.


Big corporations are super efficient, no bureaucracy. The people hired to run a company can't ever be as inefficient or corrupt as the people we elect.
It's hard to find something less efficient and more corrupt than a government.

We only elect a few people, and even they are people we don't even know, all we know is that they look good and talk smooth.

Companies generally hire and promote people who have and constantly prove their qualifications. Companies who hire/promote not the best people go down, leaving only efficient ones.


Well of course...if people kept the money, there would be X number of transactions.
But if the government takes some, and spends Q on infastructure, which goes to engineering and construction firms, and spends R on research, which goes to scientists and developers, and S on Administrators and Bureaucrats, who take their paychecks home and then spend it into the economy, and T on roads, the contractors of which have employees, who in turn spend the money...the all of that HAS to be less than X transactions. I just has to be!
Yes.
Q+R+S+T will be lower than X, at least money-wise.
Deadweight loss.

BTW, a payment-spending chain is only productive when the person in question creates extra goods and services, otherwise it's counterproductive. X, Q, R, T are productive, S isn't (per se, i.e. unless it's necessary); extra bureaucrats contribute nothing to the society, only take away from it.


That's more sound than claiming that five dollars given to a contractor by the government, then spent by him and his employees is somehow not as useful as five dollars given by me to Wal-mart and then spent by their shareholders, management and employees...
The difference is that Walmart has 10 employees servicing 1000 customers, while the inefficient bureaucracy-ridden government would only serve 100 customers with the same 10 employees.

In private version, with part of the wage deducted to pay back the initial investment.

I would think that government intervention would increase the number of people in emplyment programs

They did, but government money is your money.
If they didn't, they'd get your money (from tickets) for contracts anyway.

Airbus was deliberately created and subsidized by various European Countries for a couple decades before it became profitable. Boeing has been subsidized by the US military for decades. There's a good chance it wouldn't have lasted without these subsidies



Yes, it can. However, less efficiently, with more bureucracy.

Furthermore, it can never compensate for the deadweight loss which stems from the reduced number of transactions due to tax discouragement. The deadweight loss is not redistribution of GDP, but its reduction.

Deadweight losses have been small to nonexistant in existing welfare states on a macroeconomic level. Read Growing Public by Peter Lindert. Here's a good review (http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0779)

Chapter 10 elaborates on the "free lunch" puzzle. Standard blackboard economics "demonstrates" that, most of the time, taxes have a deadweight loss. More elaborate blackboard economics, a.k.a. simulation models, add numerical magnitudes to the chalk talk. Both, according to Lindert, are "educated fiction." When we turn to the "facts" as elucidated by panel regressions, it is difficult to find any negative effect of the welfare state on growth. This, Lindert claims, is no accident. West European countries that have embraced high levels of social spending choose taxes that have relatively small deadweight losses and pay attention to disincentive effects. Labor force participation has fallen in these countries but labor productivity of those working has gone up, partly due to a composition effect and partly because some of what government spends money on -- schools, public health, and so on -- is growth enhancing. Chapter 11 is a case study of the free-lunch puzzle, focusing on Sweden. Lindert argues that relatively slow growth in Sweden in recent decades can be blamed on bad macroeconomic policies, not the welfare state. Chapter 12, very brief, offers further reflections on the free lunch puzzle, emphasizing two points, the "budget stakes principle" and "universalism." The budget stakes principle says that if a country spends more on welfare policies, it takes greater care in designing efficient taxes and transfers. Universalism says that the costs of administering the welfare state are lower if taxes and entitlements are broad based.

More like $75/hr.

Probably, but you were the one claiming a 50% tax rate in your example.

Since taxes are taken from market interactions, they make these interactions less profitable, and as such less frequent.

Not really. If the taxes weren't there, the prices would just be lower.

See the example.

People are going to hire each other more whenever it can save time, so they have more time left to do productive work.

People already do this, even in a society with taxes. Why? Because taxes are built into the system.

Oh, but you were decrying declined production! Now, though, your choice to engage in an income method with no production is fine, but those people out there who get income from the goverment in supposed loss of production, that's bad.
What people, the bureaucrats? Yes, that's bad for the rest of the populace.

Whether my trading is bad or good is debated, as currency exchange has a stabilizing effects on the markets the governments get out of.

Actually I would have earned the money I need already on the stock markets, which is clearly productive, but due to the credit crunch I lost some and had to shift focus to currency exchange. Never liked it, but at least it doesn't suffer from global economic problems.


When a guy takes a government contract to build a road for everyone to drive on, he's "unproductive".
He is productive - just less productive than he could be if he worked for the private road industry.


As for those who couldn't eat, get health care, or get educated without the services that taxes allow for, they don't really NEED those things. Not like you need a Porsche.
Of everyone on this board, you clearly best understand rational self interest.
Hard to argue with that.

I would think that government intervention would increase the number of people in emplyment programs
It would. OTOH, the private industry always needs more employees...


Airbus was deliberately created and subsidized by various European Countries for a couple decades before it became profitable. Boeing has been subsidized by the US military for decades. There's a good chance it wouldn't have lasted without these subsidies
Without these subsidies, they would simply have to compete honestly, without an unfair advantage over other companies.

Private air transport existed long before them.


Deadweight losses have been small to nonexistant in existing welfare states on a macroeconomic level. Read Growing Public by Peter Lindert. Here's a good review (http://eh.net/bookreviews/library/0779)
Yeah, I see pretty well how small and nonexistant they are - by the plummeting of their currencies. The GBP (British pound), for instance, has fallen from $2.10 per £1 to mere $1.43... oh, wait, $1.4246 already.

Private air transport existed long before them.


Not really. Certainly not commercial air transport.

It would. OTOH, the private industry always needs more employees...

So leaving this human capital investment solely to the private sector would mean less investment.

Private air transport existed long before them.

For the idle rich perhaps. Building and designing airplanes for mass transit requires large capital costs and long time horizons. Without government subsidy it is very unlikely that there would have been any comparable companies

Yeah, I see pretty well how small and nonexistant they are - by the plummeting of their currencies. The GBP (British pound), for instance, has fallen from $2.10 per £1 to mere $1.43... oh, wait, $1.4246 already.

This is untrue. Also, who cares when the costs in real terms is negligible to nonexistant?

Not really. Certainly not commercial air transport.
Boeing got government sponsorship in 1940s.

But already as early as 1917-1920, there were operating commercial airlines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chalk%27s_Ocean_Airways
It's just one of the many. This company is still working.



So leaving this human capital investment solely to the private sector would mean less investment.
It doesn't, because the private sector would also have all the money the public one gets now.


For the idle rich perhaps.
At first mostly for businessmen, but the prices gradually dropped, and the coverage was gradually extending.


This is untrue. Also, who cares when the costs in real terms is negligible to nonexistant?
This is entirely true. The pound has plummeted 1.5 times. Care to see a graph?

The costs in real terms are that you'll get higher prices, since your money is worth less now.

The GBP (British pound), for instance, has fallen from $2.10 per £1 to mere $1.43... oh, wait, $1.4246 already.
This is untrue.
Oh my! 1.4185. YAY. I can't believe this. At 40 bucks a pip, if this goes on, I'm gonna be rich. And it's pretty much risk-free, the pound's falling short-term, mid-term and long-term.

It occurs to me we need some new theorists with a theory beyond libertarianism or socialism.

Capitalism is an obviously flawed system. It amazes me that libertarians can espouse it all, but refuse to see that we are interconnected. Corporations show a trend of becoming like governments, controlling everything. Being at least considered legally persons in our society, they are accountable to no one. Libertarians would have total deregulation so they could run even more out of control?

Personally I'd rather have a lot of society's wealth in the hands of an elected, -accountable- government rather than in the hands of a totally unregulated corporation. A government accounts for social stability, and the people. A corporation is only looking at the bottom line.

Corporations show a trend of becoming like governments, controlling everything.
So what? It's at least no worse than a formal government. Because it's corporations controlling every thing, not one huge corp controlling everything at once.


A government accounts for social stability, and the people. A corporation is only looking at the bottom line.
And that's exactly why I prefer corporations to the government.

I know a corporation is after one thing only: my money.

It doesn't care what I do in my spare time, who I sleep with, what I read and watch, whether I walk the streets naked or in a suit, what and where I drink and smoke.

It's not going to take away my freedom, like governments do. Just my money. Furthermore, it will take my money in a voluntary exchange for its goods and services, not through force. And I even get to choose what goods and services to surrender my money for! What government will offer you that?



P.S. GBP at $1.4146 already. Man, it's a roll. Month's profit overnight.

On the other hand, success may just be slower than they had hoped. I'm not going to call it a failure for a while, yet.

at the current rate, significant numbers of participants will have died of old age before they come up with the remaining 11k

It's not going to take away my freedom, like governments do.

drug testing for liberty!

drug testing for liberty!

If not for the "War on Drugs" fought by the government and the legal cases that extended mandatory testing to public employees and later private sector employees employed in "safety sensitive" positions, there would be little need for workplace drug testing. Prior to a few Supreme Court decisions in the early 1990's, testing was far less common and was primarily implemented only if the employee's performance was deteriorating or they were a liability due to working under the influence of some kind of substance. Most companies really couldn't care less what employees do when not working as long as it doesn't affect their performance, and if they do care, well, that's the joy of at-will employment.

Leave and find somewhere else to work that is more accommodating to your decisions. The labor market works both ways.

Is the problem here the assumption that people behave with rational self-interest? There is a quote (can't remember who said it) along the lines that 'the only people who behave rationally are economists and psychopaths'.

The point is what economists call deadweight loss: taxes not merely redistribute money from the people to the government, but also decrease the total amount of value produced.So? What matters is not the total value produced, but the distribution of that value.

See the example.

People are going to hire each other whenever it can save time, so they have more time left to do productive work.But what if I enjoy fixing my car? Why would I want to spend the time doing my the mind-numbing job I've super-specialized in instead?

Truly. How dare I be disabled?!? Well put, Jello.Remember, Maineiacs, you can be rich if you work hard, even if you can't work hard.

1) inability to afford education
2) unable to achieve education due to other alternatives (IE children, family obligations, etc)
3) inherent bell curve distribution system of capitalist economies that require, for the system to function, that the very rich be in the minority

That's just it to name a few. If "everyone could get what they put their mind to" then the system itself would collapse.

Because he's the wrong skin color/religion/sexual orientation?
Because the market doesn't recognize his hard work?
Because the market doesn't value his hard work?
Because he had a horrible accident and can't work anymore?
Because he was born with birth defects and can't work as hard as other people?
Because there are many many other men willing to work just as hard as he is?

etc.
Both of you are wrong. The poor are poor because they keep doing things that keep them poor. I've heard two stories about the Obama Coronation that illustrate this so well. A woman in public housing along the Eastern Seabord somewhere, New York, I think, has managed to put $5000 together at the same time. She's going to blow it on a trip to DC to see Obama sworn in. Tell me that isn't a few dollars that could be put to better use.

Second story is much the same -- woman (It's always unmarried women, isn't it?) in Atlanta public housing finds enough money to get herself to the swearing in. Again, another pot of money that could be put to better use.

Let's not forget the 'spinners' that cost more than the cars some of these folks drove when that fad was popular. Or the implicit tax on the poor called the lottery.

Poor people just do stupid things with the money they have. That's why their poor. Only a few of us have the discipline not to splurge our money away on a new car, house, boat, etc when the desire strikes and that's why we have money. Not to mention the discipline it takes to earn the money in the first place. It's a rare poor SOB who would ever think of working 80 to 100 hours a week to see an idea work. That's just not 'fair' and someone else should do it. Well, we do and we like to be rewarded at the end. Not taxed into poverty ourselves.

Poor people just do stupid things with the money they have. That's why their poor. Only a few of us have the discipline not to splurge our money away on a new car, house, boat, etc when the desire strikes and that's why we have money. Not to mention the discipline it takes to earn the money in the first place. It's a rare poor SOB who would ever think of working 80 to 100 hours a week to see an idea work. That's just not 'fair' and someone else should do it. Well, we do and we like to be rewarded at the end. Not taxed into poverty ourselves.

This is so wrong, it's absurd. Since we're premising huge, sweeping generalizations upon silly anecdotes, I get to provide one, as well, to counter-balance this idiocy. I know a woman who works two jobs, well over 80 hours a week, to support her two kids. She has been promoted over multiple times by people with less experience than her, for no discernible reason other than maybe she is Puerto Rican and has a slight accent. She makes enough to support her kids, but not much more, and, while not frugal to the point where neither she nor her kids have nothing nice, she is pretty fiscally responsible. Her kids will probably make their way into middle class, but she, herself, probably never will, though she works a shit ton harder than probably most people on this board.

This is a real case, but it is likely a not very uncommon one. I freely admit that anecdotes like this are stupid to bring into a debate, but felt I should perhaps balance the stupid.

This is so wrong, it's absurd. Since we're premising huge, sweeping generalizations upon silly anecdotes, I get to provide one, as well, to counter-balance this idiocy. I know a woman who works two jobs, well over 80 hours a week, to support her two kids. She has been promoted over multiple times by people with less experience than her, for no discernible reason other than maybe she is Puerto Rican and has a slight accent. She makes enough to support her kids, but not much more, and, while not frugal to the point where neither she nor her kids have nothing nice, she is pretty fiscally responsible. Her kids will probably make their way into middle class, but she, herself, probably never will, though she works a shit ton harder than probably most people on this board.

This is a real case, but it is likely a not very uncommon one. I freely admit that anecdotes like this are stupid to bring into a debate, but felt I should perhaps balance the stupid.

Clearly she doesn't actually work hard, because she is poor.
Just more proof that all poor people don't work hard!

Read Robert Heinlein's Coventryhttp://www.heinleinsociety.org/rah/works/shortstories/coventry.html. It's a short stroy about a "libertarian paradise." It is, like Atlas Shrugged, a work of fiction. Heinlein's story offers a far more realistic idea of what would happen in such a place.

Oh, I think I read that one. At least the place it happened in was called Coventry. It was pretty good.

Oh, I think I read that one. At least the place it happened in was called Coventry. It was pretty good.

I have been to Coventry - it is a dystopian nightmare of a city.

It's not going to take away my freedom, like governments do. Just my money.

It will if it can. It's only the law - imposed by the government - that keeps corporations from doing so.

Furthermore, it will take my money in a voluntary exchange for its goods and services, not through force.

If you're lucky.


Both of you are wrong. The poor are poor because they keep doing things that keep them poor.

Because the poor are the Borg?

I've heard two stories about the Obama Coronation that illustrate this so well.

Two whole stories? And clearly this means that every poor person who has managed to spend a little money us using it to be able to attend a historic occasion?

Poor people just do stupid things with the money they have. That's why their poor.

Yes, this is always the case. If the poor were just smarter, there'd never be any poor people.

:rolleyes:

So? What matters is not the total value produced, but the distribution of that value.
I strongly disagree. What matters is the total value produced. As for distribution, just keep it fair, in one of the many fair ways, and it's OK.

Be it meritocratic, capitalist, capital-socialist, equal-share socialist, or even outright communist if you somehow make it work. Just whatever is fair and satisfies the people - as long as it increases the total productivity.


But what if I enjoy fixing my car? Why would I want to spend the time doing my the mind-numbing job I've super-specialized in instead?
That's exactly where you'll like the libertarian ideals. Because they don't in any way imply super-specialization. On the contrary, you'll have a very diverse labor market, where you'll be able to employ multiple talents.
If you're good at fixing cars, and you should be if you like it, the utility cost of doing that is lower for you, so isn't worth hiring others to do it.

And it might make sense for you to also fix others' cars for a price. Capitalist-libertarianism implies not only proper laws, but also a way of thinking where accepting money in exchange for services isn't seen as impolite.

Poor people just do stupid things with the money they have. That's why their poor.
Yes, this is always the case. If the poor were just smarter, there'd never be any poor people.

:rolleyes:
It begs a question that it would be impolitic to ask. I often wonder if people who say things like that ever have any awareness of the light they are shining on themselves.

I know a woman who works two jobs, well over 80 hours a week, to support her two kids. She has been promoted over multiple times by people with less experience than her, for no discernible reason other than maybe she is Puerto Rican and has a slight accent. She makes enough to support her kids, but not much more, and, while not frugal to the point where neither she nor her kids have nothing nice, she is pretty fiscally responsible.
That's because working hard is not enough to break into the middle class out of the working class. It also takes marketable abilities, education, skills, luck. And, in some companies and jobs, also the right voice, looks and heritage. Not that it's good, but that's how it is.


It will if it can. It's only the law - imposed by the government - that keeps corporations from doing so.
A corporation doesn't need it. Corporations are machines, built of deals, property, humans, other liquid and non-liquid assets, and designed, through their structure, for one purpose only: producing capital for their shareholders.

They have no need to watch who you have sex with, what do you watch, et cetera. They don't care. Wasting resources on this would be contrary to their design.

Not to mention the basic laws aren't going anywhere anyway.



Two whole stories? And clearly this means that every poor person who has managed to spend a little money us using it to be able to attend a historic occasion?
I think this is more about poor people rarely having good capital management skills. It's a vicious circle, though, if you never have any money worth investing, it's pretty hard to learn to invest and manage your assets.

Of course, people who do have capital management skills will rightly say that you can invest any sum of money, even $100, and you can invest with the lowest of minimum-wage-compliant incomes by saving up $30 a month, but that's because they have these skills already.

The reservations that the government built for American indians were none too healthy.
Reservations is another word for Concentration Camps.

Why doesn't the US create a reservation for libertarians?

An area of land could be put aside where libertarians could live separated from society as individualists. They could enter voluntarily and would be exempt from all taxes and free from laws, but in turn they would have to leave all the products of society behind when they entered (so no guns unless they mined the metal for it and the tools to make it, designed it and built it entirely by themselves etc.).

Would they survive or just end up killing each other?

When you have no taxes the 1st group to move there will be the corporations? the libertarian reservation would likely be better armed then the rest of the country.

Also libertarians don't want divorce from society they want divorce from the government two completely different things. they also do not want a total divorce from the government.

The divorce from the government isn't even a total divorce, libertarians want a military, a police force, and the rule of law from their government.

When you have no taxes the 1st group to move there will be the corporations? the libertarian reservation would likely be better armed then the rest of the country.

Also libertarians don't want divorce from society they want divorce from the government two completely different things. they also do not want a total divorce from the government.

The divorce from the government isn't even a total divorce, libertarians want a military, a police force, and the rule of law from their government.
They want a lot, don't they? Do they also want a pony? And would they like the government to come round and feed and groom it for them, despite the divorce?

They want a lot, don't they? Do they also want a pony? And would they like the government to come round and feed and groom it for them, despite the divorce?

Flippant to the point of fascetious I feel.

They want a lot, don't they? Do they also want a pony? And would they like the government to come round and feed and groom it for them, despite the divorce?

the libertarians are willing to pay taxes on the basics. they know the services you get you pay for, they just want to buy as little as possible.

Yes, this is always the case. If the poor were just smarter, there'd never be any poor people.

:rolleyes:

If chronically poor people were a little more creative/careful/industrious, they wouldn't be burdened with large families, lots of debt, or a work ethic that depends on the government to do everything for them. Plenty of immigrants come to the US for the opportunity. And plenty do well. That's always been the case.

If chronically poor people were a little more creative/careful/industrious, they wouldn't be burdened with large families, lots of debt, or a work ethic that depends on the government to do everything for them. Plenty of immigrants come to the US for the opportunity. And plenty do well. That's always been the case.

Poor people didn't build the nanny state. They have no power to do anything, politically. It was misguided rich pseudointellectuals, backed by the mass of middle class voters, who built up the welfare state.

Flippant to the point of fascetious I feel.
Not facetious. Dismissive. I sincerely do view libertarianism as naively unrealistic, and carried to a certain extent, it becomes childish in my opinion.

Flippancy is just the packaging my opinions come in.

the libertarians are willing to pay taxes on the basics. they know the services you get you pay for, they just want to buy as little as possible.
See above. It's all very well and good to say you want a pay-as-you-go social system, but when challenged to apply their ideas to real-world situations, I have yet to see a libertarian not have their arguments fall apart. Their expectations of how things work are just not realistic.

A corporation doesn't need it. Corporations are machines, built of deals, property, humans, other liquid and non-liquid assets, and designed, through their structure, for one purpose only: producing capital for their shareholders.

They have no need to watch who you have sex with, what do you watch, et cetera. They don't care. Wasting resources on this would be contrary to their design.


Why don't you think it would be useful for them to know? Sounds to me like it would be pretty damn useful for marketing and advertising companies to know everything about someone. Do you seriously believe that broadcasting companies wouldn't like to know what you're watching? Almost every possible bit of information in our personal lives would be of worth to at least one industry.

It's a rare poor SOB who would ever think of working 80 to 100 hours a week to see an idea work. Given that minimum wage isn't enough to support a family on, a sizable portion of poor people work multiple jobs, often 60 or 80 hours a week.

I strongly disagree. What matters is the total value produced. As for distribution, just keep it fair, in one of the many fair ways, and it's OK.

Be it meritocratic, capitalist, capital-socialist, equal-share socialist, or even outright communist if you somehow make it work. Just whatever is fair and satisfies the people - as long as it increases the total productivity.Are you seriously saying that one person hoarding all of the resources that are worth $1,000,000 is better than resources worth $999,999 being evenly distributed among the populace?

That's exactly where you'll like the libertarian ideals. Because they don't in any way imply super-specialization. On the contrary, you'll have a very diverse labor market, where you'll be able to employ multiple talents.
If you're good at fixing cars, and you should be if you like it, the utility cost of doing that is lower for you, so isn't worth hiring others to do it.

And it might make sense for you to also fix others' cars for a price. Capitalist-libertarianism implies not only proper laws, but also a way of thinking where accepting money in exchange for services isn't seen as impolite.Well, you did say:


The whole point of libertarianism as an economic concept is that you never have to "mine the metal, make the tools, design and build it entirely by yourself". On the contrary, libertarians advocate zero tariffs and zero taxes exactly to allow for an increase in labor specialization.

This seemed to imply that you believed an increase in labor specialization was better than an increase in labor variety.

Given that minimum wage isn't enough to support a family on, a sizable portion of poor people work multiple jobs, often 60 or 80 hours a week.

Low wages are not at all at the root of the problem. Inflation of money supply is the problem. If there is no inflation, low wage earners can live comfortably.

Are you seriously saying that one person hoarding all of the resources that are worth $1,000,000 is better than resources worth $999,999 being evenly distributed among the populace?


Yes, because only concentration of wealth leads to economies of scale, streamlined increased production, and increased living standards that can be sustained for the long term.

A corporation doesn't need it. Corporations are machines, built of deals, property, humans, other liquid and non-liquid assets, and designed, through their structure, for one purpose only: producing capital for their shareholders.

And the most efficient way to do that often involves harming people - even to the point of enslaving them.

I think this is more about poor people rarely having good capital management skills. It's a vicious circle, though, if you never have any money worth investing, it's pretty hard to learn to invest and manage your assets.

Of course, people who do have capital management skills will rightly say that you can invest any sum of money, even $100, and you can invest with the lowest of minimum-wage-compliant incomes by saving up $30 a month, but that's because they have these skills already.

Ah, but this is very different than saying, "They just do stupid things with their money and its all their fault!"


If chronically poor people were a little more creative/careful/industrious, they wouldn't be burdened with large families, lots of debt, or a work ethic that depends on the government to do everything for them. Plenty of immigrants come to the US for the opportunity. And plenty do well. That's always been the case.

Poor people just have no work ethic, even if they're working three jobs to put food on the table.

Kk.

Low wages are not at all at the root of the problem. Inflation of money supply is the problem. If there is no inflation, low wage earners can live comfortably. No, given that their wages will have a similar purchasing power to what they can buy now, or lower, if in a libertarian system.

Yes, because only concentration of wealth leads to economies of scale, streamlined increased production, and increased living standards that can be sustained for the long term.There's little reason to presume that the populace wouldn't use the resources that they have to create an economy of scale, streamline and increased production, or sustain increased living standards.
There's also little reason to presume that the person with the concentration of wealth wouldn't piss it all away and accomplish none of this.

Poor people didn't build the nanny state. They have no power to do anything, politically. It was misguided rich pseudointellectuals, backed by the mass of middle class voters, who built up the welfare state.
Because it's an option, does that mean we must avail ourselves of it?

Even Obama realizes -- as he just stated -- that it was the "makers and doers" of the world that flocked to America and made it great. He also realizes that it's the opportunity that's important -- what did he say, 'an opportunity for prosperity should be extended to every willing heart'? Looks to me like he doesn't think the poor people are going to rebuild America's economy, either.

Because it's an option, does that mean we must avail ourselves of it?

No, but you're blaming the crack addicts for the crimes of the crack dealers.

Because it's an option, does that mean we must avail ourselves of it?

Even Obama realizes -- as he just stated -- that it was the "makers and doers" of the world that flocked to America and made it great. He also realizes that it's the opportunity that's important -- what did he say, 'an opportunity for prosperity should be extended to every willing heart'? Looks to me like he doesn't think the poor people are going to rebuild America's economy, either.Except for the fact that there's zero correlation between "making and doing" and overall wealth.

If chronically poor people were a little more creative/careful/industrious, they wouldn't be burdened with large families, lots of debt, or a work ethic that depends on the government to do everything for them. Plenty of immigrants come to the US for the opportunity. And plenty do well. That's always been the case.

In a time when the chronically rich have pickpocketed the nation's wallet to prop up their greed and lack of work ethic, statements like the above show a disturbing detachment from reality.

the libertarians are willing to pay taxes on the basics. they know the services you get you pay for, they just want to buy as little as possible.

No, we don't, because we realize that taxation is fundamentally immoral, and the proper means of funding a proper government is from those who necessitate its existence in the first place: the criminals themselves.

Libertarians, like anyone else, have the right to freely associate.

If they were as wildly successful as they believe themselves to be, why wouldn't they have formed a community like this a long time ago?

Both of you are wrong. The poor are poor because they keep doing things that keep them poor.

Oh really? Do please tell me what I'm doing wrong, o wise one.

(It's always unmarried women, isn't it?)

(Because what's an inane rant without a little sexist blather, you know?)

Let's not forget the 'spinners' that cost more than the cars some of these folks drove when that fad was popular. Or the implicit tax on the poor called the lottery.

"These folks" drive cars with "spinners"? I'm not even entirely sure what "spinners" are, and I drive an elderly Ford Escort. I've also never bought a lottery ticket in my life.

Poor people just do stupid things with the money they have.

....like buy cheap food! And medical care! And education! At least, that's what about 97% of all the money I've ever earned has gone towards. Pretty stupid, right?

Only a few of us have the discipline not to splurge our money away on a new car, house, boat, etc when the desire strikes and that's why we have money.

Wait, you have money because you DECIDED not to buy a new house? I think you have your cause and effect reversed here, since that's sure as hell a decision I've never needed to make.

Not to mention the discipline it takes to earn the money in the first place. It's a rare poor SOB who would ever think of working 80 to 100 hours a week to see an idea work. That's just not 'fair' and someone else should do it. Well, we do and we like to be rewarded at the end. Not taxed into poverty ourselves.

Yeah, you might get so poor that you'd have to "decide" not to buy a yacht! Being wealthy is so stressful!

....like buy cheap food! And medical care! And education! At least, that's what about 97% of all the money I've ever earned has gone towards. Pretty stupid, right?

it's your fault for eatting!

Both of you are wrong. The poor are poor because they keep doing things that keep them poor.
Some, but not all. Most poor people don't have marketable skills, nor an opportunity to get them. Not all poor can get together that $5,000. Not all have a knack for money management.



I've heard two stories about the Obama Coronation that illustrate this so well. A woman in public housing along the Eastern Seabord somewhere, New York, I think, has managed to put $5000 together at the same time. She's going to blow it on a trip to DC to see Obama sworn in. Tell me that isn't a few dollars that could be put to better use.
$5,000 is a pretty solid personal investment capital. I've started working, not experimenting but for actual gains, with just $1,000, of course, adding a lot more later when it went well.

With $5,000 at start, you can play a pretty safe long-term on stocks at 20%, and in four years, keeping to add $1,000 a year, you'll be able to visit the next inaguration (not like it's going to be any different) - while still having 10 grand for further investment work. It will just take an hour a week and keeping up with the news to keep that 20% rate up, without any special talents required. Continue, and it will keep you financially safe.



Or the implicit tax on the poor called the lottery.
It's not as much a tax on the poor as a tax on the stupid. Rich people play lotteries too, just with more expensive tickets.

There's a plethora of young upper-middle class people, usually white junior management boys, who, after being denied a promotion, angrily decide to show these jerks and build their own financial empire [with blackjack and hookers].
Knowing in full that lottery doesn't work, they take a $5,000 course that gives them ten life stories, a ton of theory they don't understand as they aren't mathematicians, and an advice to buy when the moving averages cross.

And so they self-confidently take on the markets, with that advice, their MBA, and a $15,000 starting investment (almost always 5, 10 or 15 grand). They scalp short trends aggressively, so it grows to 16, 20, 25, 30 grand. Doubling in a week, that means in two months they'll be worth a million like their boss, and maybe in just six weeks if they push hard enough. Already feeling the million dollars in their grasp, they buy premium real estate magazines, and browse through the villas, deciding thoroughly which one to buy. Oh, here comes an awesome trend, just look at it - and, fearlessly, they push the stakes to 10 lots (1 lot is $100,000, in case you don't know). A-ha, maybe that nice villa is not so far out of their reach really...

The trend reverses. "Oh, it's just noise, it will turn back", they remove the Stop Loss, like a hundred times before. And indeed, there the moving averages cross...
They keep choosing the villa that fits them most, and then a quite ding goes off. The trend didn't reverse, it was noise. Oops. A blow. They're down 15 grand, or 30 if counting the virtual earnings. It was just like a lottery for the rich.

Then some go back to work, making up a fancy explanation for how come they're out of money, and others take a $10,000 course that teaches them another 20 life stories and tells how to use momentum, put in another $15,000, and go back to indirectly supplying some math student on the other coast who pays his college bills with careful 0.1-lot deals.

[And to people who say trading doesn't redistribute any money into better hands, say it again.]

---

BTW, the pound has broken through $1.40 and reached as low as $1.3870. It's really going down long-term. Though as of today it went back up to $1.40. I wish I hadn't moved the TP down to 1.3800... way to burn three grand in a mouse click. Now trying to close it at 1.3960.



It's a rare poor SOB who would ever think of working 80 to 100 hours a week to see an idea work. That's just not 'fair' and someone else should do it. Well, we do and we like to be rewarded at the end. Not taxed into poverty ourselves.
Yes.

A while ago, I used to work over 100 hours a week - the college, the job, and the homework. It was a harsh test, but I got through and got what I wanted: education, job experience and startup money at the same time. Even after that, I worked with overtime and still spent extra time managing the finances.
People who have the abilities and care to spend the effort using them deserve what they earn in return.

Obviously poor people like being poor, otherwise they'd make choices that would make them not poor.

It really is that simple. I'm not sure why people are still debating this.

it's your fault for eatting!

It's a good thing you don't rely on your spelling to be un poor...otherwise your choice to not improve said spelling skills would keep you poor.

BTW, the pound has broken through $1.40 and reached as low as $1.3870. It's really going down long-term. Though as of today it went back up to $1.40. I wish I hadn't moved the TP down to 1.3800... way to burn three grand in a mouse click. Now trying to close it at 1.3960.


The banks that the UK government now part owns had their share price go through the floor the past couple of days. I think we lost about £30 billion in two days (and with one bank's shares suspended so it didn't go to zero altogether). Apparently that wasn't exactly good for confidence in the UK.

Libertarians, like anyone else, have the right to freely associate.

If they were as wildly successful as they believe themselves to be, why wouldn't they have formed a community like this a long time ago?

Yeah, I think it was called Rapture.

Why don't you think it would be useful for them to know? Sounds to me like it would be pretty damn useful for marketing and advertising companies to know everything about someone.
Well, they do know a lot already. Not on TV, since content isn't customer-personalized, but already on this site, you get contextual ads.

I didn't put it very well, what I meant is that they aren't interested in restricting what you do. Governments, OTOH, have to make useless legislations just to appear active if nothing else. It's what they do.

And TBH I'd rather watch ads of things I'm interested in, like cars, private no-limit roads and racetracks, just resorts, electronics, rather than ads of s--t I'm disgusted to even hear about.


And the most efficient way to do that often involves harming people - even to the point of enslaving them.
First of all, it would be extremely inefficient, as slaves can't do really productive work. The neoslavery ideas are products of retarded minds. The economic development has always been about giving people a longer leash. Direct force has been gradually replaced by economic ties, always with a great economic boost.

Not to mention that in minarchism there still are laws and law enforcement that would make enslavement next to impossible.


Ah, but this is very different than saying, "They just do stupid things with their money and its all their fault!"
Ah, but I didn't say the thing you quote. It was another poster. My position is different.

...I didn't put it very well, what I meant is that they aren't interested in restricting what you do. ...

What if you're putting together a trade union? Would they be interested in restricting that?

Both of you are wrong. The poor are poor because they keep doing things that keep them poor. I've heard two stories about the Obama Coronation that illustrate this so well. A woman in public housing along the Eastern Seabord somewhere, New York, I think, has managed to put $5000 together at the same time. She's going to blow it on a trip to DC to see Obama sworn in. Tell me that isn't a few dollars that could be put to better use.

Second story is much the same -- woman (It's always unmarried women, isn't it?) in Atlanta public housing finds enough money to get herself to the swearing in. Again, another pot of money that could be put to better use.

Let's not forget the 'spinners' that cost more than the cars some of these folks drove when that fad was popular. Or the implicit tax on the poor called the lottery.

Poor people just do stupid things with the money they have. That's why their poor. Only a few of us have the discipline not to splurge our money away on a new car, house, boat, etc when the desire strikes and that's why we have money. Not to mention the discipline it takes to earn the money in the first place. It's a rare poor SOB who would ever think of working 80 to 100 hours a week to see an idea work. That's just not 'fair' and someone else should do it. Well, we do and we like to be rewarded at the end. Not taxed into poverty ourselves.


Sexism and racism. Awesome.

No, given that their wages will have a similar purchasing power to what they can buy now, or lower, if in a libertarian system.
What is the logic behind your claim? In a system without government fiat money, wage earners would never feel the effects of inflation, and in fact their saved money will gradually gain in purchasing power over time, due to steady secular increases in technology and productivity; i.e. cheaper, less expensive, and better products over time.

The only reason wage earners experience the effects of inflation today is because the government central banks are authorized by force to create money and debt out of thin air. This new money and credit is handed to the central bankers' monocled friends, which lessens the purchasing power of all other people in society. By the time the new money trickles down to the wage earners it becomes relatively worthless because the system is awash with an oversupply of money chasing an undersupply of goods and services, most of the goods having been snapped up early by the monocled friends who benefited, not from free market enterprise, but from their connections with the government's central banking system and from having first dibs on the government's printed money. By abolishing government fiat money, this corruption would be eliminated, and the government wouldn't be able to just print money out of thin air and arbitrarily lower the purchasing power of the wage earning classes.

There's little reason to presume that the populace wouldn't use the resources that they have to create an economy of scale, streamline and increased production, or sustain increased living standards.
All evidence in history supports that "presumption." Redistribution consistently leads to stagnant living standards, shortages, and in many scenarios food shortages and starvation.
There's also little reason to presume that the person with the concentration of wealth wouldn't piss it all away and accomplish none of this.
Yet that's untrue. The countries with people with free markets and people with large concentrations of wealth have consistently and invariably produced higher and higher levels of living standards for all, not just for the privileged. Capitalism is not a system where only the strong survive and the weak die off; both the strong and the weak survive, prosper, and multiply under capitalism.

What if you're putting together a trade union? Would they be interested in restricting that?
Without the laws forbidding companies to fire anyone striking on sight, trade unions would be mostly harmless.


Are you seriously saying that one person hoarding all of the resources that are worth $1,000,000 is better than resources worth $999,999 being evenly distributed among the populace?
Hoarding resources as in sitting on a pile of oil barrels with a shotgun and not letting anyone near it?

Because the rich people don't hoard the money, they spend it, directly or indirectly. Most of that spending is not on luxuries, but on developing their share of the economy.


This seemed to imply that you believed an increase in labor specialization was better than an increase in labor variety.
One doesn't exclude the other. You can have a variety of skills, each of them specialized. Your main job (say engineering), your side craft (say welding), your job in the local community (say electrics repair), your role in a sports team, finally your role of mixing drinks at home parties 'cause you're good at it, but not needing to chip in.

Whatever you do, don't feed the libertarians. They hate handouts. :p

Sexism and racism. Awesome.

Elucidate please, how is it sexism? How is it racist? Girls like sex as much as boys do, but unlike boys, girls get this growth-it's called Pregnant, if they do so without birth-control. That's not sexism, that's biology.

As for the "Spinny Hubcaps" thing, I've seen hundereds of white-trash running around with spinny hubcaps and their hats on backwards wearing enough precious metals to finance a down payment on a house-stupid fads and poverty go together. I've seen the twenty-thousand-dollar customized 4x4 out in front of the food-bank, and he wasn't working there-he was there to collect.

Circumstances might start you poor. Being Stupid and irresponsible will Keep you poor. The grocery down the street is owned and run by Laotians who came to the U.S. with neither pot to piss in, nor window to throw it out, they aren't poor anymore, they came with nothing.

Elucidate please, how is it sexism?


Did you seriously just question how "It's always the single women who do stupid things with money, isn't it?" is sexist?

Wow.

What is the logic behind your claim? In a system without fiat money, wage earners would never feel the effects of inflation, and in fact their saved money will gradually gain in purchasing power over time, due to steady secular increases in technology and productivity; i.e. cheaper, less expensive, and better products over time.They're not going to have any saved money. The lower classes, if they're lucky, can make enough to live off of without having to borrow any money.

The only reason wage earners experience the effects of inflation today is because the government's policies allows central banks to create money and debt out of thin air. This new money and credit is handed to the central bankers' monocled friends, which lessens the purchasing power of all other people in society. By the time the new money trickles down to the wage earners it becomes relatively worthless because the system is awash with an oversupply of money chasing an undersupply of goods and services, most of the goods having been snapped up early on by the monocled friends who benefited, not from free market enterprise, but from their first dibs on the government's printed money and their connections with the government's central banking system. By abolishing government fiat money this sort of corruption would be eliminated, and the government wouldn't be able to print money out of thin air and arbitrarily lower the purchasing power of the wage earning classes.Correct.
Instead, when a new source of gold is discovered (in a system without fiat money), it can be released onto the market and arbitrarily lower the purchasing power of the wage earning classes. Is lowering the purchasing power of poor people only bad when the government does it?

All evidence in history supports that "presumption." Redistribution consistently leads to stagnant living standards, shortages, and in many scenarios food shortages and starvation.Incorrect. Redistribution has rarely, if ever been done with the intent of giving out equal shares to everyone within the society. Instead, the redistribution has merely shifted concentrations of wealth around.

Yet that's untrue. The countries with people with free markets and people with large concentrations of wealth have consistently and invariably produced higher and higher levels of living standards for all, not just for the privileged. Capitalism is not a system where only the strong survive and the weak die off; both the strong and the weak survive, prosper, and multiply under capitalism.For all? So there are no homeless people in capitalist countries?
Furthermore, anything resembling what you've claimed has only been true following the advent of the welfare state. Prior to the creation of the welfare state, capitalism's chief effect on society was to make the lower classes worse off than they were before.

Hoarding resources as in sitting on a pile of oil barrels with a shotgun and not letting anyone near it?Yes, or only letting resources out in extremely narrow trickles, which has the same net effect.

Because the rich people don't hoard the money, they spend it, directly or indirectly. Most of that spending is not on luxuries, but on developing their share of the economy.So instead of one person having the vast majority of the money, you end up with 10-20% controlling the vast majority of the money. Not a significant difference.

One doesn't exclude the other. You can have a variety of skills, each of them specialized. Your main job (say engineering), your side craft (say welding), your job in the local community (say electrics repair), your role in a sports team, finally your role of mixing drinks at home parties 'cause you're good at it, but not needing to chip in.And how am I going to learn how to do all of these things? Is the skill fairy going to bless me?

Yes, or only letting resources out in extremely narrow trickles, which has the same net effect.
And why would he do that?

Because in a few years, such capital management politic would make him poor. Guarding a pile of oil barrel costs money, but brings him no income, while others are making money.


So instead of one person having the vast majority of the money, you end up with 10-20% controlling the vast majority of the money. Not a significant difference.
A significant difference. You can't split all the money evenly between everyone, because then it will become worthless. What use do I have for your money, if I'm not allowed to become any richer? None.

The vast majority of the money will always be in the hands of people who are good or professional at money management. Who can invest it into further production, rather than squander it at consumer goods and services.


And how am I going to learn how to do all of these things? Is the skill fairy going to bless me?
You were the one who complained about specialization and wanted to use multiple skills.

If you have only one skill - go ahead, use just that skill.

Correct.
Instead, when a new source of gold is discovered (in a system without fiat money), it can be released onto the market and arbitrarily lower the purchasing power of the wage earning classes. Is lowering the purchasing power of poor people only bad when the government does it?

It doesn't have to be a gold-based money system. Paper non-fiat money systems are shown to be stable, in places like Somalia, which experiences very little monetary and credit inflation (though Somalia is not immune to the loss of purchasing power due to external factors like foreign central banks' manipulation of money and credit that amounts to confiscatory transferal of goods and services from free currency zones to fiat currency zones).

A non-fiat paper money system issued by polypolistic private banks is far more stable and equitable than a monopolistic government fiat money system which has no oversight. The credibility of polypolistic money-issuing authorities is checked by free market competition and this is empirically shown to be viable in a stateless society like Somalia and notable other places.

Incorrect. Redistribution has rarely, if ever been done with the intent of giving out equal shares to everyone within the society. Instead, the redistribution has merely shifted concentrations of wealth around.
The type of centralized, top-down information-control planning you're proposing will invariably lead to disaster. No human planners, no supercomputer no matter how advanced, can allocate resources more efficiently than the free market, and the systemic inefficiencies arising from government planning will invariably accumulate and lead to catastrophes such as shortages, or in a best case scenario completely stunt the economic prosperity of all classes of people.

For all? So there are no homeless people in capitalist countries?
To begin with, abolishing government interventions in modern state-capitalist countries would reduce homelessness to a minimum. Laws against squatting, and government-enforced home price supports use brute force to keep many people from housing themselves, and there are many other government regulations conspiring to keep the homeless down and out of work.

Furthermore, anything resembling what you've claimed has only been true following the advent of the welfare state. Prior to the creation of the welfare state, capitalism's chief effect on society was to make the lower classes worse off than they were before.

That's not true. Under capitalism, food supplies and health supplies have exploded like never before, allowing population booms never before seen in human history, due to rapidly declining death rates, increased life expectancies, increased living standards, increased access to material objects, and increased calorie intakes all over the world. Starvation and food shortages only occurs when there is government interference like war and economic planning. The free market is intent on squeezing every possible speck of grain out of the soil, in order to profitably feed the world's population.

First of all, it would be extremely inefficient, as slaves can't do really productive work.

Then why do corporations left to themselves tend in that direction?

Not to mention that in minarchism there still are laws and law enforcement that would make enslavement next to impossible.

(a) Then it wouldn't be a free market. It would be a regulated one.

(b) The types of enslavement corporations have used aren't always as obvious as outright ownership. Instead, they simply make their workers so dependent upon them that said workers cannot get out. Corporations in the past would, for instance, pay wages only in company vouchers. Their workers could then use said vouchers to pay for company housing and to buy food at the company store. Of course, the company made sure that the wages weren't enough to actually fully pay for these things, so that the worker was perpetually in debt to them.


Yet that's untrue. The countries with people with free markets and people with large concentrations of wealth have consistently and invariably produced higher and higher levels of living standards for all, not just for the privileged. Capitalism is not a system where only the strong survive and the weak die off; both the strong and the weak survive, prosper, and multiply under capitalism.

There are no countries with true free markets (which, by the way, would by definition allow slavery - as labor becomes a commodity to be bought and sold). Countries in which most prosper have a combination approach to the economy. Sometimes they err more to one side than the other.


Without the laws forbidding companies to fire anyone striking on sight, trade unions would be mostly harmless.

And corporations would be much more dangerous - with much more control over the lives of their workers.

And why would he do that?

Because in a few years, such capital management politic would make him poor. Guarding a pile of oil barrel costs money, but brings him no income, while others are making money.If he believes that the price of oil will rise in the future, it would make sense to not sell his oil now.

A significant difference. You can't split all the money evenly between everyone, because then it will become worthless. What use do I have for your money, if I'm not allowed to become any richer? None.All the more reason to eliminate money entirely.
On the other hand, people would still have use for the resources that another person has.

The vast majority of the money will always be in the hands of people who are good or professional at money management. Who can invest it into further production, rather than squander it at consumer goods and services.Professional money management as it currently exists frequently produces nothing, and doesn't even boost demand in the way purchasing consumer goods does.

You were the one who complained about specialization and wanted to use multiple skills.

If you have only one skill - go ahead, use just that skill.Yes, because the system that you're proposing is gearing people towards having, at most, one skill. It is therefore silly to bring up hypothetical multiple-skilled people when they will be rarities.
As opposed to a system where education is free and long-lasting (if not lifelong, for instance).

It doesn't have to be a gold-based money system. Paper non-fiat money systems are shown to be stable, in places like Somalia, which experiences very little monetary and credit inflation (though Somalia is not immune to the loss of purchasing power due to external factors like foreign central banks' manipulation of money and credit that amounts to confiscatory transferal of goods and services from free currency zones to fiat currency zones).

A non-fiat paper money system issued by polypolistic private banks is far more stable and equitable than a monopolistic government fiat money system which has no oversight. The credibility of polypolistic money-issuing authorities is checked by free market competition and this is empirically shown to be viable in a stateless society like Somalia and notable other places.Great, so when the body that issues the money that you have goes out of business, instead of having reduced purchasing power, you'll have zero purchasing power.

The type of centralized, top-down information-control planning you're proposing will invariably lead to disaster.I'm not proposing town-down information-control.

No human planners, no supercomputer no matter how advanced, can allocate resources more efficiently than the free market, and the systemic inefficiencies arising from government planning will invariably accumulate and lead to catastrophes such as shortages, or in a best case scenario completely stunt the economic prosperity of all classes of people.Hayek's incorrect assertions aside, there is every reason to believe that technology will advance to the point where it can do so, if it hasn't already.
Furthermore, such a system will allocate resources in a way that is better than the free market.

To begin with, abolishing government interventions in modern state-capitalist countries would reduce homelessness to a minimum. Laws against squatting, and government-enforced home price supports use brute force to keep many people from housing themselves, and there are many other government regulations conspiring to keep the homeless down and out of work.Squatting violates ownership rights. It is odd that you are upset about the government protecting private ownership rights.
Furthermore, it is true that the government plays a role in this, but it isn't the case that the rich couldn't do it themselves if there was no state.

That's not true. Under capitalism, food supplies and health supplies have exploded like never before, allowing population booms never before seen in human history, due to rapidly declining death rates, increased life expectancies, increased living standards, increased access to material objects, and increased calorie intakes all over the world. Starvation and food shortages only occurs when there is government interference like war and economic planning.It is absolutely true. The abject misery faced by people in the early stages of industrialization was far worse than the poverty they experienced while tilling their own meager plots.
Country poverty is less severe than city poverty, and one of capitalism's big effects was the flow of people from the country to the city.

The free market is intent on squeezing every possible speck of grain out of the soil, in order to profitably feed the world's population.It isn't profitable to feed the world's population (as a whole). Otherwise, perfectly good food wouldn't be allowed to rot.

Oh really? Do please tell me what I'm doing wrong, o wise one.
Inauguration day popcorn? *offers*

(Because what's an inane rant without a little sexist blather, you know?)
Hey, everyone knows sluts cost money. :rolleyes:

"These folks" drive cars with "spinners"? I'm not even entirely sure what "spinners" are, and I drive an elderly Ford Escort.
I don't even own a car. What can Myrm blame on me? :confused:

I've also never bought a lottery ticket in my life.
Me neither! People mock me for not even knowing how to buy one. No, baby, no car, no gambling... shit, am I poor because I don't exist?

I doubt it.

....like buy cheap food! And medical care! And education! At least, that's what about 97% of all the money I've ever earned has gone towards. Pretty stupid, right?
You are a blithering idiot. I know because I'm one, too, in the exact same way.

Wait, you have money because you DECIDED not to buy a new house? I think you have your cause and effect reversed here, since that's sure as hell a decision I've never needed to make.



Yeah, you might get so poor that you'd have to "decide" not to buy a yacht! Being wealthy is so stressful!
I wonder how they cope. The most challenging price comparison shopping I've ever needed to do was which brand of coffee to buy for the best value, and I've never had enough collateral or income in my life to qualify me to go shopping for the kinds of things I'd need a loan for.

No system is perfect, unfortunately. However, the beauty of a capitalistic system is that anyone who applies themselves is capable of rising to whatever he chooses.

This isn't capitalism. This is kleptomaniacal plutocracy (rule by the rich who exploit that power to basically steal from everyone else).

It doesn't, because the private sector would also have all the money the public one gets now.

How much of this would go into human investment? How much would go into schools now that parents have to pay them? How many children will be born now that the direct costs have increased(no more fully or partially subsidized education) and higher opportunity costs(now that every sacrificed hour of work that is costs more with fewer taxes)? It sounds like a lot less guman capital investment to me.



At first mostly for businessmen, but the prices gradually dropped, and the coverage was gradually extending.

So why aren't there major competitors to Airbus and Boeing?



This is entirely true. The pound has plummeted 1.5 times. Care to see a graph?

The costs in real terms are that you'll get higher prices, since your money is worth less now.

I care to see that the fact that the UK is somehow suffering from having a fiat currency, that the real

This is entirely true. The pound has plummeted 1.5 times. Care to see a graph?

The costs in real terms are that you'll get higher prices, since your money is worth less now.

I care to see that the fact that the UK is somehow suffering from having a fiat currency, that the real GDP is suffering, that the welfare state that you acknowledged as being of negligible cost is being paid for by fiat currency. You haven't proven any of that.

What is the logic behind your claim? In a system without government fiat money, wage earners would never feel the effects of inflation, and in fact their saved money will gradually gain in purchasing power over time, due to steady secular increases in technology and productivity; i.e. cheaper, less expensive, and better products over time.

Deflation in the general price level drives up the real interest rate, makes investment riskier, makes it profitable to hold money in matresses rather than being put in a bank to be used productively, lowers consumer confidence, ect. Look at Japan's lost decade.


All evidence in history supports that "presumption." Redistribution consistently leads to stagnant living standards, shortages, and in many scenarios food shortages and starvation.

Untrue. The macroeconomic data shows that redistribution is virtually costless in existing nations. Check out the Growing Public by Peter Lindert. Here's another review (http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:OxI4XKzRzsYJ:www.cbss-ngo.dk/%3Fdownload%3Dsoc_social%2520welfare%2520and%2520economic%2520growth.doc+Growing+public+free+lunch+p aradox&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a)

If not for the "War on Drugs" fought by the government and the legal cases that extended mandatory testing to public employees and later private sector employees employed in "safety sensitive" positions, there would be little need for workplace drug testing. Prior to a few Supreme Court decisions in the early 1990's, testing was far less common and was primarily implemented only if the employee's performance was deteriorating or they were a liability due to working under the influence of some kind of substance. Most companies really couldn't care less what employees do when not working as long as it doesn't affect their performance, and if they do care, well, that's the joy of at-will employment.

Leave and find somewhere else to work that is more accommodating to your decisions. The labor market works both ways.

I have heard that using cost benefit analysis that any savings gained from such drug tests are eaten up by the costs of said tests, They don't seem to be very useful.

Both of you are wrong. The poor are poor because they keep doing things that keep them poor.

Horseshit, on an epic scale. That's like arguing rich people are rich because they keep doing things that make them rich.

SUre, in either case, there could be SOME individuals for whom it is true. But a lot of people are born poor, and you can't really blame them for that, any more than you can blame those born rich for being rich.

Those born poor, or pushed into poverty, get less access to healthcare, justice, social support... quality housing, quality diet... childcare, education...

..there are dozens of factors that will directly influence your capacity to be employed, that poor people are distinctly deprived of. Consequently, those who are poor are less likely to make money... not because they have no will, or make bad decisions (although both CAN also be true) but because the system is stacked against poor people succeeding.

Great, so when the body that issues the money that you have goes out of business, instead of having reduced purchasing power, you'll have zero purchasing power.
This makes no sense. Empirical evidence (from Kurdistan and Somalia) shows that paper monies do not have to be redeemable by any issuing agent or backed by any commodity to maintain a steady market value, in fact among the most stable and inflation-resistant of all the currencies in the world, especially when compared to fiat currencies (like the USD) issued by governments who have mandatory inflationary monetary policies. The most effective check against inflation is market processes and market processes not only prevent inflation, it also maintains the integrity of the medium of exchange.

Squatting violates ownership rights. It is odd that you are upset about the government protecting private ownership rights.
Furthermore, it is true that the government plays a role in this, but it isn't the case that the rich couldn't do it themselves if there was no state.
Of course the government should abolish squatting laws. Ownership rights laws appear spontaneously from the free market, and do not require government police enforcement. Abolishing zoning laws and squatting laws would result in an organically developed free market city far more efficient in accomodating the housing needs of people.

It is absolutely true. The abject misery faced by people in the early stages of industrialization was far worse than the poverty they experienced while tilling their own meager plots.
Country poverty is less severe than city poverty, and one of capitalism's big effects was the flow of people from the country to the city.
What abject misery cities? In the industrializing cities food and access to healthcare were and are plentiful like never before in history.

It isn't profitable to feed the world's population (as a whole). Otherwise, perfectly good food wouldn't be allowed to rot.

Government subsidies, tariff barriers, and other politically-motivated government interventions cause food to rot. You can't seriously believe the global food supply is a free market and not completely distorted by technocratic management.

Of course the government should abolish squatting laws. Ownership rights laws appear spontaneously from the free market, and do not require government police enforcement. Abolishing zoning laws and squatting laws would result in an organically developed free market city far more efficient in accomodating the housing needs of people.

How? I like your house, I'm bigger/better armed/more friends/etc than you. I take your house. Who stops me?


What abject misery cities? In the industrializing cities food and access to healthcare were and are plentiful like never before in history.

This has got to be sarcasm right? You cannot be seriously arguing this. If you are then ffs go read a history, any history. An 11 year old could probably set you straight on what it was like to be poor during the IR.

This makes no sense. Empirical evidence (from Kurdistan and Somalia) shows that paper monies do not have to be redeemable by any issuing agent or backed by any commodity to maintain a steady market value, in fact among the most stable and inflation-resistant of all the currencies in the world, especially when compared to fiat currencies (like the USD) issued by governments who have mandatory inflationary monetary policies. The most effective check against inflation is market processes and market processes not only prevent inflation, it also maintains the integrity of the medium of exchange.

Empirical evidence shows all wealthy countries have fiat currencies, I'm including Switzerland in there because it has far too much currency in circulation then it could ever back up with its supply of gold. Also, I have yet to see any empirical evidence that mild to moderate inflation inhibits growth. Hell, rapidly growing nations like China and Dubai have relatively high inflation rates.

Government subsidies, tariff barriers, and other politically-motivated government interventions cause food to rot. You can't seriously believe the global food supply is a free market and not completely distorted by technocratic management.

Here's a fun fact about the US agricultural "market": do you know what they do with those huge surpluses of food after disbursement through school lunch programs and food aid? They either stick it in government silos for some imaginary future threat, turn it in to inefficient ethanol fuel, or the saddest of all simply destroy it. We're basically talking milk poured down drains all in the name of supporting prices for so-called "family farmers". If agriculture were a real free market, there would be far fewer instances of famine and food shortage around the world. Global agricultural capacity right now is far higher than any future population demand, but it's the complex network of protectionist and quota systems combined with government corruption around the globe that reduce the level of output.

It's rather ironic that the US government can protect "family farmers" like ConAgra, Cargill and Monsanto but can't give any aid to small farmers in developing countries whose access to materials, equipment, and basic necessities like seed, water and fertilizer is inherently halted by the impoverishing effects of the US government and their own governments' obsession with promoting easy-to-embezzle profits from cash crops.

This has got to be sarcasm right? You cannot be seriously arguing this. If you are then ffs go read a history, any history. An 11 year old could probably set you straight on what it was like to be poor during the IR.

I think he means currently industrializing cities, and it's true. Even if conditions are very, very grim by our standards, compared to the abject rural poverty and lack of any real chance for improvement in many developing nations the cities are a golden bastion of opportunity. The development of China's middle class and rising living standards is inherently linked to the mass urbanization currently going on across the nation.

There would literally be nothing for many of these people without the cities.

If agriculture were a real free market, there would be far fewer instances of famine and food shortage around the world.

But to actually ensure of elimination famine and food shortage the world would need democratic government with free and fair elections and a free press in every nation. No such nation has ever had a famine. Many famines, like Bengal in 1943 and Ireland's Potato Famine could have been avoided if everyone had the right to some food. In both places food was being exported while people nearby were starving. This comes originally from Amartya Sen.

This makes no sense. Empirical evidence (from Kurdistan and Somalia) shows that paper monies do not have to be redeemable by any issuing agent or backed by any commodity to maintain a steady market value, in fact among the most stable and inflation-resistant of all the currencies in the world, especially when compared to fiat currencies (like the USD) issued by governments who have mandatory inflationary monetary policies. The most effective check against inflation is market processes and market processes not only prevent inflation, it also maintains the integrity of the medium of exchange.How are they retaining any value if they aren't redeemable?

Of course the government should abolish squatting laws. Ownership rights laws appear spontaneously from the free market,There's no such thing as a right appeaing spontaneously.

and do not require government police enforcement.The concept of ownership does.

Abolishing zoning laws and squatting laws would result in an organically developed free market city far more efficient in accomodating the housing needs of people.I agree that the city would be far more efficient in accomodating the housing needs of people, but it's difficult to have a free market without ownership laws.
Are you sure you know what squatting is?

What abject misery cities? In the industrializing cities food and access to healthcare were and are plentiful like never before in history.Are you familiar with the history of Britain?

Government subsidies, tariff barriers, and other politically-motivated government interventions cause food to rot. You can't seriously believe the global food supply is a free market and not completely distorted by technocratic management.I don't believe that the global food supply is a free market (far too many subsidies), but if it were, there's no reason to believe the situation would be much different.

If he believes that the price of oil will rise in the future, it would make sense to not sell his oil now.
The price of oil in real terms, averaged over short-terms (not counting daily peaks and valleys), will always be going down as long as it's not highly scarce. Why? Because as the economy improves, it can produce more per each barrel used.

As long as oil isn't highly scarce, he will go bankrupt as someone else will overtake the oil market.

And when it becomes highly scarce, he's doing a service to everyone's children by only selling it in limited qualities.


All the more reason to eliminate money entirely.
On the other hand, people would still have use for the resources that another person has.
Barter.
How eff-ficient.


Professional money management as it currently exists frequently produces nothing, and doesn't even boost demand in the way purchasing consumer goods does.
Professional money management allows people to create companies, produce goods, and pay wages to their workers. It also allows other consumers to take cheap credit if they're short on money.


Yes, because the system that you're proposing is gearing people towards having, at most, one skill. It is therefore silly to bring up hypothetical multiple-skilled people when they will be rarities.
On the contrary, it's geared towards everyone having, at least, two or three marketable skills. Note that it would involve extending the list of fitting skills, i.e. a lot more skills would be marketable.

The idea is for people to be able and expected to work in multiple roles, as to use your and others' time most efficiently. You could easily run a small local business in your community, for instance a family shop - since with relaxed laws, running such a business wouldn't take significant paperwork. Have a main job in the city, and then, after getting back, use your simpler skills in your garage or in others' homes. Again, it's not that it's never done today, but capital-libertarianism conceptualizes this as an income source. Maximizing the labor exchange, everywhere.


As opposed to a system where education is free and long-lasting (if not lifelong, for instance).
You're talking about economic libertarianism.

Because when companies aren't obliged to keep you on the job just because you've been doing so for 10 years or are in some union, lifelong education will become a necessity, not an option.


---

On your reply to Trilateral Commission:
Great, so when the body that issues the money that you have goes out of business, instead of having reduced purchasing power, you'll have zero purchasing power.
Yeah, eGold is today worth 20 cents for a "gold dollar", eBullion 1-5 cents for "gold dollar". This is due to the government's actions against them to maintain a monopoly on currency.

Then why do corporations left to themselves tend in that direction?
They don't. Personnel rotation is common. Except for Japanese ones where it's a tradition.


(a) Then it wouldn't be a free market. It would be a regulated one.

"Free market" doesn't imply "absolutely unregulated market".

A free market is a market that isn't hindered in any way except that necessary for compliance with civil rights (laws) and support of that market.
No transaction taxes, no tariffs, loose limits on what can be sold, et cetera.


(b) The types of enslavement corporations have used aren't always as obvious as outright ownership. Instead, they simply make their workers so dependent upon them that said workers cannot get out. Corporations in the past would, for instance, pay wages only in company vouchers.
Yes, I know. It was in the times when capitalism wasn't yet established, but rather in the times of transition from feudalism (which includes regulated and partial human ownership) to capitalism proper.

It wouldn't work today, when money and money-replacement can be easily exchanged with known exchange rates, so a "wage in vouchers" will be considered as its value in dollars or gold.

However, in a limited sense, part of that system still not only exists, but is actively promoted by the governments - themselves the prime user. It's called benefits: company healthcare, stock options, other benefits. Work for the government, such as in the military, is particularly benefit-heavy, with non-monetary compensation worth (and costing) more than the monetary part.


And corporations would be much more dangerous - with much more control over the lives of their workers.
Well, yes, corporations, if they want to, could have almost as much control over their employees as the government has now. The difference is that you can choose your employer; it's not so easy to choose (personally choose, not vote for the lesser of two evils) your government.
Not satisfied with big fat strict-dress-code loyalty-obsessed own-ideology corporations, go to small companies who don't care as long as you do your job. Don't like these liberal hippies either, go to Fordist 'social' corporations with no-drinking no-drugs traditional-family-values company towns. Too conservative for you, go to friendly-image companies that keep a balance.

It's a critical part that of the system that you can change your employer, thus changing your laws. Libertarianism doesn't imply anarchy, it implies the freedom of choice, including the choice of laws of life, apart from those concerning violation of others' rights.

How much of this would go into human investment? How much would go into schools now that parents have to pay them? How many children will be born now that the direct costs have increased(no more fully or partially subsidized education) and higher opportunity costs(now that every sacrificed hour of work that is costs more with fewer taxes)? It sounds like a lot less human capital investment to me.
Well, fewer people - more resources for each of them. It's not like Earth is underpopulated and we need more consumers.

However, many say that children are the best investment you can make in your life. And if we look at things globally, they're right.


So why aren't there major competitors to Airbus and Boeing?
There are competitors, there used to be a lot more. However, as you say yourself, Airbus and Boeing were heavily fed by the state, so they had an unfair advantage that allowed them to buy out most of their competitors.


I care to see that the fact that the UK is somehow suffering from having a fiat currency, that the real GDP is suffering, that the welfare state that you acknowledged as being of negligible cost is being paid for by fiat currency. You haven't proven any of that.
Welfare state isn't of negligible cost. I never said that and you'd have to be very weird to think that all the free services really come for free. For one, you pay enormous taxes on such essential commodities as petrol.

As for the suffering of British GDP, the pound is down, so your nominal GDP is already way down. PPP will follow - in a global integrated economy of EU, the sharp drop in GBPEUR from 1.50 to 1.0692 €/£ (as of now, soon it will break 1.00 I think) has dropped the purchasing power of all UK citizens. And that's with Euro already being a falling currency. You will see the prices rise, if you haven't already. First on imports, then on everything.

The price of oil in real terms, averaged over short-terms (not counting daily peaks and valleys), will always be going down as long as it's not highly scarce. Why? Because as the economy improves, it can produce more per each barrel used.Perhaps so, but oil production is either declining, or will soon start to decline. As the supply runs out, each barrel will rise in value, not fall.

Professional money management allows people to create companies, produce goods, and pay wages to their workers. It also allows other consumers to take cheap credit if they're short on money. And allows people to speculate, driving up the prices of investments artificially, then withdraw from those investments, allowing the prices to plummet.

On the contrary, it's geared towards everyone having, at least, two or three marketable skills. Note that it would involve extending the list of fitting skills, i.e. a lot more skills would be marketable.

The idea is for people to be able and expected to work in multiple roles, as to use your and others' time most efficiently. You could easily run a small local business in your community, for instance a family shop - since with relaxed laws, running such a business wouldn't take significant paperwork. Have a main job in the city, and then, after getting back, use your simpler skills in your garage or in others' homes. Again, it's not that it's never done today, but capital-libertarianism conceptualizes this as an income source. Maximizing the labor exchange, everywhere.Not without knowing how to do these things, and there's not going to be any way for me to know how to do these things in the type of system you speak of.

You're talking about economic libertarianism.

Because when companies aren't obliged to keep you on the job just because you've been doing so for 10 years or are in some union, lifelong education will become a necessity, not an option.That's the point. It won't be possible for people to afford lifelong education in such a system, if any education at all.

They don't.

Yes, they do - or did, when there were no laws preventing it.

"Free market" doesn't imply "absolutely unregulated market".

No, but it does imply, "nearly completely unregulated market."

A free market is a market that isn't hindered in any way except that necessary for compliance with civil rights (laws) and support of that market.
No transaction taxes, no tariffs, loose limits on what can be sold, et cetera.

That all depends. What kinds of laws fall under civil rights? I would say that the laws protecting the ability to form unions and strikes do. I would say that minimum wage laws fall under that category as well.

And, in truth, a free market can only work in a closed system, under which everyone works by the same rules. If your country has a free market, but the next country over doesn't, you aren't operating in a free market (unless you refuse to trade with them). If you require OSHA regulations, but the next country over doesn't, you can't engage in true free market trading with them.

Yes, I know. It was in the times when capitalism wasn't yet established, but rather in the times of transition from feudalism (which includes regulated and partial human ownership) to capitalism proper.

We never really had feudalism in the US, yet we had corporations that essentially enslaved their workers.

It wouldn't work today, when money and money-replacement can be easily exchanged with known exchange rates, so a "wage in vouchers" will be considered as its value in dollars or gold.

That particular strategy might not work, but that doesn't mean the concept wouldn't work. Corporations keep workers in third-world countries (or illegal immigrants in this one) just as dependent upon them as any workers in the past.

Well, yes, corporations, if they want to, could have almost as much control over their employees as the government has now. The difference is that you can choose your employer; it's not so easy to choose (personally choose, not vote for the lesser of two evils) your government.

You can only choose your employer if you already have money. Otherwise, you have to take whatever job you can get. And, generally, you have to keep it.

If you're living paycheck to paycheck, quitting your job really isn't an option unless you already have a new one. And since looking for a new job generally must take place at the same time as working your current one, you don't have an opportunity to look.

It's a critical part that of the system that you can change your employer, thus changing your laws. Libertarianism doesn't imply anarchy, it implies the freedom of choice, including the choice of laws of life, apart from those concerning violation of others' rights.

Those choices have to actually exist to be useful, however. It's one thing to say that you have freedom of choice, but when your situation dictates that any choice but one puts you out on the streets, you really don't.

Perhaps so, but oil production is either declining, or will soon start to decline. As the supply runs out, each barrel will rise in value, not fall.
As I've said, there are two stages to it.
1: Oil supply is limited, but the production still grows. In that time, "hoarding" is pointless, because the real price of oil is falling. It's more profitable to sell it earlier and invest the money.

2: Oil supply is running out. In this case, only selling it in limited quantities is a net benefit for the community.


And allows people to speculate, driving up the prices of investments artificially, then withdraw from those investments, allowing the prices to plummet.
There are issues connected to speculation, but the benefits of markets greatly outweigh them. Without the stock markets, young companies would have a hard time finding any investment at all.


Not without knowing how to do these things, and there's not going to be any way for me to know how to do these things in the type of system you speak of.
Why is that? Do you presume all colleges would close because... [insert reason]?

I have obtained all my skills because I needed them, not because state offered them.
I have learned manual labor and welding so that I could earn money early. I have learned mechanics and electronics assembly, maintenance and repair skills in part because it was interesting, in part because I needed them, and nothing of that was learned in the school. I have learned engineering in a college, because I needed that to get the job that suits me well. I have learned capital management, investment and trading skills all on my own because I needed to increase the limited income I could get as a student to a meaningful level.

Out of these, the pri/sec schools have provided me with... uhm, I'm not sure, something probably. Perhaps with an overview into the country's history, tolerance to tedium and truancy skills.

The rest was private. So I don't see at all how would I not have any of the skills I have without the state education system. That's not to say there's no need for it. However, it only plays a very minor role in providing people with marketable skills.

TBH, most that schools do is just occupy the children' and teenagers' time while their parents are at work. Also provide them with a slightly disciplined environment to form social connections. It's good, it provides a replacement for the family to urbanites with two working parents, but it's not what gives you a job.


That's the point. It won't be possible for people to afford lifelong education in such a system, if any education at all.
On the contrary, the only way people can afford (or can be bothered to get) lifelong education today is through corporate sponsorship. It's always commercial, and almost universally paid for by the employer.

The state isn't even involved in post-tertiary education.

Only the primary and secondary schools are state-funded, and even then, a lot of people send their children to private schools (or "public schools" as they're perversely called in UK).

No, but it does imply, "nearly completely unregulated market."
Which is how it should be. Only the very minimal regulation for law compliance.


That all depends. What kinds of laws fall under civil rights? I would say that the laws protecting the ability to form unions and strikes do. I would say that minimum wage laws fall under that category as well.
Most certainly they don't. How is minimum wage a civil right? What about 90% of the world where only the richest earn what is minimum wage in US?

Protecting the ability to strike is outright ridiculous. Striking is refusing to work and holding the industry hostage unless/until a condition is met. Well, but if people refuse to work, they can leave.
Forbidding the employer to fire the strikers that don't want to work and hire currently jobless people who do want to work is like instituting a law that not only absolves terrorists from any guilt, but punishes the hostages if they make an escape attempt.


And, in truth, a free market can only work in a closed system, under which everyone works by the same rules. If your country has a free market, but the next country over doesn't, you aren't operating in a free market (unless you refuse to trade with them).
However, a country that doesn't have a free market most of all hurts itself.
Sure, you can't make everyone switch over to free market, but you can do what's good for you, switch yourself.


We never really had feudalism in the US, yet we had corporations that essentially enslaved their workers.
US also used to have real slavery.

A predatory labor market is created when there's a severe shortage of job opportunities, and an excess of job seekers. It can be equally well created in an anarchy or in a totalitarian state. Take USSR for an example of the latter.


Corporations keep workers in third-world countries (or illegal immigrants in this one) just as dependent upon them as any workers in the past.
And one of these third-world countries is China - a country with particularly intrusive government.

There's shortage of labor. You should understand what developing countries are, they're not countries that have fallen behind in the race, they're nations that just yesterday were barely recognized to exist as countries. As late as WWII, the tiny Japan, itself not a top-level power, walked over China. Just recently, the developing world had no industry whatsoever. People worked in the fields just to survive, forget any luxuries we in the West don't even imagine the life without, like tap water.

Most people can't get even a job like these - so of course there is a predatory labor market.
If you don't have any industry, you can legislate any laws, but they won't do any good. If you manage to defeat the black labor market and enforce strict labor laws, you'll just have half your population unemployed and toiling the fields with tenth century tools, or, in case of high pop density, dying out of hunger.

If you have a highly developed economy with a labor shortage, you don't even need any laws, because companies themselves will be competing to offer higher wages and better conditions, as they're doing already.

If you think that without minimum wage laws companies would pay next to nothing to everyone, then explain, how come that me and you and pretty much everyone here who has a job, and our parents and adult children (if present) earn a lot more than mandated by law?


If you're living paycheck to paycheck, quitting your job really isn't an option unless you already have a new one. And since looking for a new job generally must take place at the same time as working your current one, you don't have an opportunity to look.
Sorry, but this is a lame excuse for lazy people who don't want to change their security guard job for one where they actually have to work.

Looking for employment isn't a full-time job. Everyone does it when they need to and want to, and while working at their previous job.


Those choices have to actually exist to be useful, however. It's one thing to say that you have freedom of choice, but when your situation dictates that any choice but one puts you out on the streets, you really don't.
If a situation is that grim, no legislation can change it. If there isn't any industry and so there aren't any jobs, no lawmaking and regulatory effort can create them. Well, apart from ones in the lawmaking itself.

Did you seriously just question how "It's always the single women who do stupid things with money, isn't it?" is sexist?

Wow.

Quiet you. Men are talking.


You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th Century Russian-American philosopher, Ayn Rand.

As I've said, there are two stages to it.
1: Oil supply is limited, but the production still grows. In that time, "hoarding" is pointless, because the real price of oil is falling. It's more profitable to sell it earlier and invest the money.

2: Oil supply is running out. In this case, only selling it in limited quantities is a net benefit for the community.How is selling it in limited quantities a net benefit for the community?
And why is the person who owns the oil concerned with the community at all?

There are issues connected to speculation, but the benefits of markets greatly outweigh them. Without the stock markets, young companies would have a hard time finding any investment at all.Stock speculation is a problem, but so is currency speculation.

Why is that? Do you presume all colleges would close because... [insert reason]?All colleges? No. There would be a few to cater to the very rich. There might even be a few that offer scholarships to poor people with connections. Most of them would close, though. Same with primary and secondary schools.

I have obtained all my skills because I needed them, not because state offered them.
I have learned manual labor and welding so that I could earn money early. I have learned mechanics and electronics assembly, maintenance and repair skills in part because it was interesting, in part because I needed them, and nothing of that was learned in the school. I have learned engineering in a college, because I needed that to get the job that suits me well. I have learned capital management, investment and trading skills all on my own because I needed to increase the limited income I could get as a student to a meaningful level.Where and how did you learn these skills?

Out of these, the pri/sec schools have provided me with... uhm, I'm not sure, something probably. Perhaps with an overview into the country's history, tolerance to tedium and truancy skills.

The rest was private. So I don't see at all how would I not have any of the skills I have without the state education system. That's not to say there's no need for it. However, it only plays a very minor role in providing people with marketable skills.

TBH, most that schools do is just occupy the children' and teenagers' time while their parents are at work. Also provide them with a slightly disciplined environment to form social connections. It's good, it provides a replacement for the family to urbanites with two working parents, but it's not what gives you a job.Schools tend to be the primary factor in teaching children basic reading and math. Illiterates are hard to employ.

On the contrary, the only way people can afford (or can be bothered to get) lifelong education today is through corporate sponsorship. It's always commercial, and almost universally paid for by the employer.And it's also exceedingly rare.

The state isn't even involved in post-tertiary education. Which is why a lot of people are stuck in boring jobs that require them to specialize their labor.

Only the primary and secondary schools are state-funded, and even then, a lot of people send their children to private schools (or "public schools" as they're perversely called in UK).What percentage of the populace is "a lot"? 20%?

Wasn't there a movement by libertarians to try to do that in New Hampshire?

Eminent domain.

OMG - you made a funny and nobody got it!!!!!

I got it. That was friggin hilarious!

Thanks!

Which is how it should be. Only the very minimal regulation for law compliance.


Nope. Exactly the opposite.

It should be absolutely regulated, with only the minimal amount of freedom required to allow for actual practise.

Most certainly they don't. How is minimum wage a civil right?

One has a right to be fairly compensated for one's work. Unfortunately, in an unregulated system, pretty much all the power rests in the hands of the corporations. Particularly in relatively unskilled labor, the worker has no power to negotiate a fair wage. There will always be someone more desperate and thus willing to work for less, even if it isn't enough.

What about 90% of the world where only the richest earn what is minimum wage in US?

(a) Minimum wage should follow living wage. If the living wage in an area is less than in another area, the minimum wage can thus be lower there.

(b) A great deal of the world is in abject poverty no matter how hard they work.

Protecting the ability to strike is outright ridiculous. Striking is refusing to work and holding the industry hostage unless/until a condition is met. Well, but if people refuse to work, they can leave.

And starve?

Unions - and the threat of strikes - are the method by which the workers can combine the incredibly meager negotiating power each individual has so that it actually becomes something the corporations have reason to listen to.

Again, it's a matter of balancing the power structure.

Forbidding the employer to fire the strikers that don't want to work and hire currently jobless people who do want to work is like instituting a law that not only absolves terrorists from any guilt, but punishes the hostages if they make an escape attempt.

LOL. Expecting fair wages and safe work conditions is terrorism now?

However, a country that doesn't have a free market most of all hurts itself.
Sure, you can't make everyone switch over to free market, but you can do what's good for you, switch yourself.

...which will hurt you if no one else has a free market. Suppose country A levies heavy tariffs on products from country B, but country B does not do the same. This means that, in the overall market, the industry in country B is heavily disadvantaged.

Suppose country A subsidizes a given industry, while country B does not. In the overall market, country A has an artificial advantage.

And so on...

US also used to have real slavery.

Indeed. And the law changed to prevent it.

And one of these third-world countries is China - a country with particularly intrusive government.

And many of those countries hardly have a government to speak of at all. What's your point?

If you think that without minimum wage laws companies would pay next to nothing to everyone, then explain, how come that me and you and pretty much everyone here who has a job, and our parents and adult children (if present) earn a lot more than mandated by law?

Most people who can afford to hang around on internet forums have jobs (and/or their parents have jobs) that are relatively skilled. Working in skilled labor does give one a bit more bargaining power. Of course, the bargaining power basically amounts to, "I have more education, etc. than those guys, so I should get paid more." If the corporations were allowed to pay less than minimum wage for unskilled labor, the wages for everything else would go down as well.

Sorry, but this is a lame excuse for lazy people who don't want to change their security guard job for one where they actually have to work.

Actually, security guard jobs would be more likely to leave time for job searches. It's much more likely that a security guard works the night shift, and thus could use the daytime - when people actually do job interviews and such - to find a new job.

Someone who always works the day shift and can't afford to miss hours doesn't have that luxury. Someone who works 2-3 jobs at various shifts has an even harder problem.

Looking for employment isn't a full-time job. Everyone does it when they need to and want to, and while working at their previous job.

Sure, if by "everyone" you mean "the relatively privileged."

If a situation is that grim, no legislation can change it.

No, probably not. But at least it can keep it from getting worse. The law may not be able to help a person in that situation get a better job, but it can help to make sure that she can actually make living at the job or that she won't be put out on the street if she gets sick.

If there isn't any industry and so there aren't any jobs, no lawmaking and regulatory effort can create them. Well, apart from ones in the lawmaking itself.

Who said anything about no industry or no jobs?

Well, fewer people - more resources for each of them. It's not like Earth is underpopulated and we need more consumers.

Fewer people means fewer resources per capita given fewer workers, less innovation(given fewer innovators), ect. Part of the reason of Japan's lost decade, other than the early deflation and small level on inflation, was due to its low fertility rate. As of 2005 its population has been shrinking.

However, many say that children are the best investment you can make in your life. And if we look at things globally, they're right.

So fewer resources will be available in a libertarian world than in one that subsidizes children and invests heavily in them.




There are competitors, there used to be a lot more. However, as you say yourself, Airbus and Boeing were heavily fed by the state, so they had an unfair advantage that allowed them to buy out most of their competitors.

Name a few, please.



Welfare state isn't of negligible cost. I never said that and you'd have to be very weird to think that all the free services really come for free. For one, you pay enormous taxes on such essential commodities as petrol.

The welfare state is of negligible to zero costs because much of the spending growth enhancing, large transfer budgets means governments have a large incentives to fine tune the incentives and disincentives that taxes and tranfers create, and universalism lowers administrative costs. No econometric study has shown that the welfare state inhibits growth on a macroeconomic level. This is also true on the state and province units of nations in federal and confederal governments.


As for the suffering of British GDP, the pound is down, so your nominal GDP is already way down. PPP will follow - in a global integrated economy of EU, the sharp drop in GBPEUR from 1.50 to 1.0692 €/£ (as of now, soon it will break 1.00 I think) has dropped the purchasing power of all UK citizens. And that's with Euro already being a falling currency. You will see the prices rise, if you haven't already. First on imports, then on everything.

PPP is much less volatile than exchange rates. This means that nominal and real GDP are also less volatile. You'll have to do better than this to prove your assertions. Also, given that most of the UK's trade partners also are welfare states, including the US, I don't see the UK could pay for the welfare state with a falling pound when according to your assertions all of their currencies should also be falling. No competitive advantage would be gained.

Nope. Exactly the opposite.
It should be absolutely regulated, with only the minimal amount of freedom required to allow for actual practise.
Why stop at that? Since the governments, consisting of politicians (professional smooth-talkers) and bureaucrats (professional time-wasters), know better how to run the market, they should also be the only ones to run the business.



Fewer people means fewer resources per capita given fewer workers, less innovation(given fewer innovators), ect. Part of the reason of Japan's lost decade, other than the early deflation and small level on inflation, was due to its low fertility rate. As of 2005 its population has been shrinking.
The main reason is bursting of the economic bubble.

Regardless, children are not a heavy financial burden in developed countries. "Childfree" people do it for personal reasons, not economic ones. Removing already very minor subsidies for having children won't affect neither their decisions nor those of people who have or plan to have children. Except for pure welfare leechers, whom we don't need anyway.


Name a few, please.
Douglas.
And others, read on it yourself if you're interested.


The welfare state is of negligible to zero costs because much of the spending growth enhancing, large transfer budgets means governments have a large incentives to fine tune the incentives and disincentives that taxes and tranfers create, and universalism lowers administrative costs.
Welfare leechers who don't work their entire life.
Pork barrel projects.
Failing projects like Boston Dig.
It's very "fine" tuning, that's for sure.


PPP is much less volatile than exchange rates. This means that nominal and real GDP are also less volatile.
You'll see for yourself.

As several of y'all have claimed that what I said was "bullshit", tell me why on earth a hard working man in a capitalistic society can't rise to whatever height he sets his mind to?

Because resources are limited, so its first come first serve, monopolies on these resources form, and they won't like to share. Thereby no matter how much a hard working man sets his mind to, unless he can magic resources, or special knowledge that resources he doesn't have would make available, out of thin air, he will never advance beyond a base state. Never.

Addendum: Barring deus ex machina like winning the state lottery.

One has a right to be fairly compensated for one's work.
One has the right to the products of their labor.

It matters not how hard you work, but how much value that work produces. A fair compensation means a fair percentage of that, i.e a decent ratio of gross to net profit.
If the work isn't productive, however, you can't call a compensation higher than the work's value fair.

A way to gauge whether the compensation is fair in national terms is by Median Income to GDPPC (or, better, GDPPE) ratio.


(a) Minimum wage should follow living wage. If the living wage in an area is less than in another area, the minimum wage can thus be lower there.

And what is "living wage"? In US, "living wage" would mean having a private house, a car or even two per household, a full set of home appliances, wearing an assortment of new clothes, eating a healthy and varied diet. In 90% of the world, however, a person having all that, particularly an own house, would be considered rich. Not just well off or upper-middle class, but seriously rich, capitalist class.

In even relatively well-off countries in Asia and most of Europe, a living wage would mean renting a small apartment for a full family with kids (100 sq.ft per person) or a room otherwise, being able to afford public transport or having a scooter if PT isn't available, having a sink, a toilet, a stove, not necessarily private, and a TV in your room. New clothes would be bought sparingly, second-hand purchases are frequent, clothes worn until significant wear, repaired as needed; the food would be sufficient, but bought carefully looking for lower prices and restraining yourself.

But in 70% of the world, that would still be considered a high standard of living. There a living wage means, literally, a wage that allows you to live. Because in half the world, dying is an option and living itself a common, but achievement.

Can you live in US to European standards (and Europe isn't limited to UK, France and Germany)? Clearly. Can you live to high Asian standards? Yes, you will be seen as poor, but you can. Can you live to rest-of-the-world standards? No, you won't find a way to earn so little.

The choice of what to call a "living wage" is arbitrary. At a minimum wage of $7/hr or 7*8*250=$14,000/yr, a person in US would still have a standard of living in the top quintile of the world populace, one that would count as at the very least well-off in 90% of the world.


Now, all that being said, I'm actually not an opponent of minimum wage. I'm just not sure you understand what a minimum wage law means.
80% of the world only dream to earn that much, and there's a lot of people out there dying of hunger. A decision to have a minimum wage law is a decision to let them die, despite jobs existing for them, because their lives are less important than the right of equally unskilled people to be overpaid if they happened to be born in a point with another latitude and longitude.



And starve?
And get another job. There is one, right? Because if there isn't, they're hardly in a position to complain. Currently jobless people need money too, if they are ready to work for less, it means they're in a more dire need of money.


LOL. Expecting fair wages and safe work conditions is terrorism now?

Taking them at gunpoint is. Halting production with the employer being legally forbidden to resume it through hiring other workers is pretty much that.


...which will hurt you if no one else has a free market. Suppose country A levies heavy tariffs on products from country B, but country B does not do the same. This means that, in the overall market, the industry in country B is heavily disadvantaged.
Actually, it's a popular misconception. The country A is rather disadvantaged, because they can't take advantage of lower prices and higher quality offered by country B (and there are lower prices and higher quality, otherwise people would buy domestic anyway). As such, their local industry, lacking competition, doesn't develop much domestically, and can never develop to compete with to B.
Example: Communist and post-communist cars are crap without exception, despite costing similarly to much better cars from capitalist countries.

The country B, however, is still advantaged by the trade with A, because they can take advantage of outsourcing low-paying jobs to B and focusing on skilled labor, thus becoming the richer of the two.
Examples: US citizens can wear acceptable quality clothes made in China that cost less an hour of their time at minimum wage, despite taking multiple hours to produce.
American citizens and businesses make heavy use of computers and electronics, produced in the third world, which would cost a lot less to make in US, and make computerization much slower.


Suppose country A subsidizes a given industry, while country B does not. In the overall market, country A has an artificial advantage.
Quite the contrary. It only has an advantage if the subsidies are so high as to allow for malicious competition techniques, i.e. bankrupting the same industry in country B by offering goods almost for free, to jack the price up to unseen heights when A gets a monopoly.

If the plan doesn't succeed, however, it's the country B which gets an advantage! Because the country A taxes its citizens to make its products cheaper - and give them to B. Effectively, country A pays a tribute to country B. The B's citizens enjoy a higher standard of living than they could otherwise, at the expense of country A. Furthermore, by these high taxes country A also hinders its other industries so they lose out to country B.



Working in skilled labor does give one a bit more bargaining power. Of course, the bargaining power basically amounts to, "I have more education, etc. than those guys, so I should get paid more."
Don't be ridiculous. The payment levels go far beyond "so I should get paid more". They don't pay me and other highly skilled specialists ten times the minimum wage and beyond just because we would feel cheated otherwise. They pay a lot because otherwise I'll pick my phone and call another company that already offered more. It's like an auction. A professional's price is decided by his value.

And it's not just the companies. You don't pay your doctor or your lawyer even greater sums just because you feel it would be unfair to pay him as much as a road worker.


Someone who always works the day shift and can't afford to miss hours doesn't have that luxury.
If going to the interview is really what separates him from a better job, rather than an excuse not to look for one, he/she can afford to miss hours. Call in sick if nothing else works. It's not like you really care that you won't be the employee of the month if you're leaving the job anyway.


The law may not be able to help a person in that situation get a better job, but it can help to make sure that she can actually make living at the job or that she won't be put out on the street if she gets sick.
The law can print gold? They can print money, but fiat currency devalues.

If the situation is so bad that you can't afford to live American Way (known as upper class life quality elsewhere) on the regular wage, no law can give you the money. Raising the minimum wage will only result in all but the best thrown out on the streets... for a while until the industries ultimately go bankrupt from not being able to afford the wages.

If the situation is good, the minimum wage laws aren't used anyway.

One has the right to..

Whatever one can get away with. Rights are earned and taken. If you can't defend those rights, you lose them. Explain to me why a libertarian wouldn't take and employ a slave workforce once they have the power to do so with impunity.

Whatever one can get away with. Rights are earned and taken. If you can't defend those rights, you lose them. Explain to me why a libertarian wouldn't take and employ a slave workforce once they have the power to do so with impunity.
Two reasons.
1) Because it would be much less efficient than a normal workforce.
2) Because libertarianism doesn't equal anarchy. On the contrary, it excludes anarchy, and requires state as a protector of rights and liberties ["negative" rights, not the positive wants]. These concepts both involve more freedom than the status quo, they're common in that, but they're distinct.



How is selling it in limited quantities a net benefit for the community?
And why is the person who owns the oil concerned with the community at all?
Selling it is a benefit because the community gets some product.
Limiting the quantities is a benefit because it leaves something for tomorrow, rather than burning it all today in Hummers.


Stock speculation is a problem, but so is currency speculation.
Speculation itself isn't a problem - it's what allows the underlying problems to surface quickly rather than slowly. It doesn't drop or raise the values; it serves to immediately reflect market changes in the price, give hints to big players, who, then, would make changes in their actions.

The speculators are just tiny specks in the market. The prime movers are holding companies, national banks and multinational corporations, they're the ocean. Then follow local national corporations, collective investors, other long players, market makers, they're the ocean currents. Then go companies, private investors, hedgers,
And only in the end, in even smaller numbers, are speculative traders, they're just the waves.

When you look at the ocean, what you see is waves, over time you can notice the tides, but you never see the currents, and don't even imagine the 3 mile deep ocean itself. But it's there, and its currents carry quadrillions of tons of water thousands of miles and more energy than the whole humanity produces, while the waves just roll the same water in circles.

The waves are visible, but they're not what creates tides and currents. So the speculators are well visible, but they just reflect what's going on, not cause it.


All colleges? No. There would be a few to cater to the very rich.
Why is that, could you explain? Because right now there's a plethora of privately funded colleges that cater to the lower-middle class. For a price. An affordable one, quickly paying off.

They make profits now. Why do you think they wouldn't without taxes? Or, perhaps, you presume they'd do it just out of evilness, or maybe because they'll read this post and decide to make a point?


Where and how did you learn these skills?
It would be a long story for each to tell in detail. But all of these skills were either self-learned or learned at a commercial basis, for immediate commercial use.


Schools tend to be the primary factor in teaching children basic reading and math.
Parents who don't have their children able to read books and know basic math (+-*/) by the time they go to primary school don't deserve to be allowed to reproduce (no, I'm still anti-regulation, but if we should regulate anything at all, reproduction should be the first in line).

While schools do take over further education, the vast majority of it is just for supporting the cultural level.


And it's also exceedingly rare.
Not at all. It's present wherever it's needed. Any CNC machine operator, technician, maintenance specialist, not even to mention white-collar workers, gets on-the-job or off-the-job training till the end of their career.


Which is why a lot of people are stuck in boring jobs that require them to specialize their labor.
And you want a fun job that won't require you to specialize? Perhaps, like posting on the forums, editing a wiki or watching movies all day? Sorry, man. Everyone does. There are too many takers and too few fun and non-specialized jobs.

You can make your own job, with blackjack and hookers. If your hands are in the right place, you can be a self-employed tradesman. If you're good at talking, you can make a career as a salesman, and if you're also good at deception, even as a politician. If you have a gut feeling for a good deal, can talk and manage, you can start your own business. If your IQ is in the top percent and you have a good grasp and knowledge of math, try stocks, currency and futures trading.


What percentage of the populace is "a lot"? 20%?
20% is an extremely high percentage, when talking about paying for what you would get for free anyway.

So don't overestimate the extent to which people hate their children. Most parents actually, on the contrary, like their children and want to give them a good future. Even if it costs. And they're absolutely right, as for 98% of the people, who aren't artists, entrepreneurs or architects, it's the only accomplishment they can make in life. They should be put into the Bureau of Weights and Measures with a plaque saying "Doing it right".

Selling it is a benefit because the community gets some product.If it's sold to the community.

Speculation itself isn't a problem - it's what allows the underlying problems to surface quickly rather than slowly. It doesn't drop or raise the values; it serves to immediately reflect market changes in the price, give hints to big players, who, then, would make changes in their actions.

The speculators are just tiny specks in the market. The prime movers are holding companies, national banks and multinational corporations, they're the ocean. Then follow local national corporations, collective investors, other long players, market makers, they're the ocean currents. Then go companies, private investors, hedgers,
And only in the end, in even smaller numbers, are speculative traders, they're just the waves.

When you look at the ocean, what you see is waves, over time you can notice the tides, but you never see the currents, and don't even imagine the 3 mile deep ocean itself. But it's there, and its currents carry quadrillions of tons of water thousands of miles and more energy than the whole humanity produces, while the waves just roll the same water in circles.

The waves are visible, but they're not what creates tides and currents. So the speculators are well visible, but they just reflect what's going on, not cause it.There is ample evidence that the Asian financial crises of the late 1990s were the result of currency speculation.

Why is that, could you explain? Because right now there's a plethora of privately funded colleges that cater to the lower-middle class. For a price. An affordable one, quickly paying off.

They make profits now. Why do you think they wouldn't without taxes?Because the people who go there now would no longer have the government grants, scholarships, or subsidized loans that they do now.

It would be a long story for each to tell in detail. But all of these skills were either self-learned or learned at a commercial basis, for immediate commercial use.How do you know you learned the skill correctly if you self-learned it?
Why should anyone else trust you've learned the skill correctly?

Parents who don't have their children able to read books and know basic math (+-*/) by the time they go to primary school don't deserve to be allowed to reproduce (no, I'm still anti-regulation, but if we should regulate anything at all, reproduction should be the first in line).Some parents have to work and thus don't have time to teach their kids these things.

Not at all. It's present wherever it's needed. Any CNC machine operator, technician, maintenance specialist, not even to mention white-collar workers, gets on-the-job or off-the-job training till the end of their career.Any of these people gets lifelong training? Doubtful.

And you want a fun job that won't require you to specialize? Perhaps, like posting on the forums, editing a wiki or watching movies all day? Sorry, man. Everyone does. There are too many takers and too few fun and non-specialized jobs.Which represents a massive, glaring flaw in the system.

You can make your own job, with blackjack and hookers. If your hands are in the right place, you can be a self-employed tradesman. If you're good at talking, you can make a career as a salesman, and if you're also good at deception, even as a politician. If you have a gut feeling for a good deal, can talk and manage, you can start your own business. If your IQ is in the top percent and you have a good grasp and knowledge of math, try stocks, currency and futures trading. None of this applies to me, but even if it did, it would be because I got years of schooling, and I only would have gotten years of schooling thanks to taxes going towards my education.

20% is an extremely high percentage, when talking about paying for what you would get for free anyway.

So don't overestimate the extent to which people hate their children. Most parents actually, on the contrary, like their children and want to give them a good future. Even if it costs. And they're absolutely right, as for 98% of the people, who aren't artists, entrepreneurs or architects, it's the only accomplishment they can make in life. They should be put into the Bureau of Weights and Measures with a plaque saying "Doing it right".You are correct that reproducing is the only accomplishment many people will make in life, which is why poor people have so many kids.

And what is "living wage"? In US, "living wage" would mean having a private house, a car or even two per household, a full set of home appliances, wearing an assortment of new clothes, eating a healthy and varied diet. In 90% of the world, however, a person having all that, particularly an own house, would be considered rich. Not just well off or upper-middle class, but seriously rich, capitalist class.

The living wage means the same thing no matter where you are. It means you can acquire adequate shelter, clothing, food, and healthcare.

Now, all that being said, I'm actually not an opponent of minimum wage. I'm just not sure you understand what a minimum wage law means.
80% of the world only dream to earn that much, and there's a lot of people out there dying of hunger. A decision to have a minimum wage law is a decision to let them die, despite jobs existing for them, because their lives are less important than the right of equally unskilled people to be overpaid if they happened to be born in a point with another latitude and longitude.

Hardly. It simply means that such a wage must be paid. While other countries may not have such protections, they should.

And get another job. There is one, right? Because if there isn't, they're hardly in a position to complain. Currently jobless people need money too, if they are ready to work for less, it means they're in a more dire need of money.

In other words, you think it's perfectly alright for a corporation to treat people like cattle, so long as they're desperate enough to allow it.

Actually, it's a popular misconception. The country A is rather disadvantaged, because they can't take advantage of lower prices and higher quality offered by country B (and there are lower prices and higher quality, otherwise people would buy domestic anyway). As such, their local industry, lacking competition, doesn't develop much domestically, and can never develop to compete with to B.

(a) You ascribe too much rationality to buyers' habits.

(b) Their local industry doesn't have to develop as much. It's being artificially propped up and thus crowding out the products of the other country in, at the very least, the domestic market.

Quite the contrary. It only has an advantage if the subsidies are so high as to allow for malicious competition techniques, i.e. bankrupting the same industry in country B by offering goods almost for free, to jack the price up to unseen heights when A gets a monopoly.

Or if they're just high enough for the companies there to offer products at lower prices.

Don't be ridiculous. The payment levels go far beyond "so I should get paid more". They don't pay me and other highly skilled specialists ten times the minimum wage and beyond just because we would feel cheated otherwise. They pay a lot because otherwise I'll pick my phone and call another company that already offered more. It's like an auction. A professional's price is decided by his value.

And the entire industry offers more because you expect it. And they can't just go get another guy, because only some people have the same skills as you.

And it's not just the companies. You don't pay your doctor or your lawyer even greater sums just because you feel it would be unfair to pay him as much as a road worker.

No, you pay them those sums because you need their services, and that's what they charge.

If going to the interview is really what separates him from a better job, rather than an excuse not to look for one, he/she can afford to miss hours. Call in sick if nothing else works. It's not like you really care that you won't be the employee of the month if you're leaving the job anyway.

In some jobs, calling in sick gets you fired. Missing hours gets you fired. So now, if you don't get to start that new job tomorrow or if, heaven forbid, you don't get it at all, you're without income.

The law can print gold? They can print money, but fiat currency devalues.

What does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

If it's sold to the community.
Well, obviously, if by community you mean a bunch of neighbors in their homes, they have no need for molybdenum and vanadium, what would you do with 3 pounds of each?

I mean the business community - it's sold to businesses that need the resource.


There is ample evidence that the Asian financial crises of the late 1990s were the result of currency speculation.
The blame always falls on what's visible, because at least 99% of the people (that includes many involved in the speculation itself) have no idea whatsoever about what that speculation really is and how it works.

The speculators are like waves, they don't move anything anywhere, just roll it on the surface. Their net output in terms of effect on economies is nil. Like waves raise water up and down, but never change the sea level, the financial speculators shift stock values and exchange rates, but don't really take major capital in or out, and ultimately don't exchange any currency.
What their actions do, however, is give early signals to the prime movers of the market that a certain company or even a certain country is failing, and is a bad place to invest in. That way the prime movers can save their capitals and invest them somewhere where they won't be wasted.

The Japanese housing bubble was never sustainable. It would collapse, sooner and harmlessly, or later and devastatingly.
Sadly, the governments didn't take lesson, and continued to boost bubbles elsewhere. But neither were these bubbles sustainable, so we got what we got.
The speculators' positive role in the market is deflating bubbles at the first signs of instability, while attracting investors to markets with high potential.


Because the people who go there now would no longer have the government grants, scholarships, or subsidized loans that they do now.
For most people, it was loans. The former were just given an artificial advantage.
Yes, the student loans are subsidized, but the education still pays off. And if you take a dozen hours a week to work while you study, you don't even need the loans.
There's also an increasingly popular scheme where a company pays for your education, bundled with a job contract for a few years.


How do you know you learned the skill correctly if you self-learned it?
Why should anyone else trust you've learned the skill correctly?
For some skills, they aren't even taught professionally, say you can't learn how to use a computer or work on the markets in a college.
For others, I know from people who have better skill at that.
As for why anyone else trusts me (or trusted me), they just do, as they should.


Some parents have to work and thus don't have time to teach their kids these things.
Both my parents worked, I still didn't come to school looking around like an idiot and staring in surprise and amazement at strange shapes called letters.

Maybe some parents just take the time to do other things with their kids than toy around with a candy while watching TV and drinking beer on the couch.


Any of these people gets lifelong training? Doubtful.
A CNC operator that doesn't get lifelong training becomes useless in less than a decade.
Even more so for engineers, programmers, other highly skilled jobs.


Which represents a massive, glaring flaw in the system.
Well, sorry. You want a pink-toned world where you can be paid handsomely for doing something that is fun, but requires no skill and no effort.

And maybe it is available, but somewhere on the other side of this multiverse.


None of this applies to me, but even if it did, it would be because I got years of schooling, and I only would have gotten years of schooling thanks to taxes going towards my education.
Is it a tacit way to admit that you've wasted tax money by schooling in a useless subject?

The living wage means the same thing no matter where you are. It means you can acquire adequate shelter, clothing, food, and healthcare.
That would mean a minimum wage of $1.50/hr or so for most of the US and EU.

The definition of "adequate" differs between countries. Most Westerners consider "adequate shelter" to be a spacious comfortable house, rest of the world something that keeps you from the rain and cold. For the Westerners, "adequate clothing" is a large wardrobe of new clothes, for rest of the world, it's a few T-shirts that aren't rags yet and something warm for the colder seasons. For the Westerners, "adequate healthcare" means top-notch cost-no-object healthcare, while elsewhere in the world it means getting a shot of vaccine and antibiotics against pandemic diseases.

Technically, in US, you can acquire shelter, clothing, food and healthcare, adequate by world standards, for free. Still solid abandoned buildings to squat in, discarded clothing that isn't even halfway worn out, food with a couple days past its expiration date, and even ER healthcare. In many countries, people would dream of living like that.


Hardly. It simply means that such a wage must be paid. While other countries may not have such protections, they should.
Don't you understand that if a country has a GDPPC of $300 per capita, it CAN'T pay all its workers $14,000 a year, no matter what the law says?
If such a wage MUST be paid by law, then 99% of the workers will be fired and die out of starvation. The rest 1% will be the meat industry, fortunately the customs of many of the least developed countries allow for a diverse meat diet.



(a) You ascribe too much rationality to buyers' habits. The irrational buyers aren't swung one way or another by prices.
(b) Their local industry doesn't have to develop as much. It's being artificially propped up and thus crowding out the products of the other country in, at the very least, the domestic market.
So what? It's being done at the expense of other industries. It's a net loss. The country A will become a big seller in its subsidized industry, but will lose out in everything else.


Or if they're just high enough for the companies there to offer products at lower prices.
Subsidized by destroying their other industries. So? The country B will enjoy de-facto taxing the country A and getting things for less than they're worth.
Then they'll focus on other industries, which will be at an advantage over A's ones due to lower taxes.


And the entire industry offers more because you expect it. And they can't just go get another guy, because only some people have the same skills as you.
[...]
No, you pay them those sums because you need their services, and that's what they charge.
Don't you see it's the same situation?

The industry doesn't offer me more "because I expect it", because then they would have to pay $100 per hour to any waitress with an unwarranted self-importance syndrome.
They pay me because they need my services, and that's what I charge. But, if I charged a lot more, they wouldn't pay me that much and try to do with another guy who is less skilled. Similarly, if lawyers' prices weren't acceptable for you, you'd go to ask for advice from law students.

It's a market, it's all about supply and demand. The price of labor is a balance between how much the customers can pay and how many people are there who can do the job.


In some jobs, calling in sick gets you fired. In some. But what are these jobs?

Also, if so, where is your law you claim to protect people against such things now?

That would mean a minimum wage of $1.50/hr or so for most of the US and EU.

No, it wouldn't. You couldn't even rent a small studio apartment on that in most parts of the country, much less clothe and feed yourself as well.

The definition of "adequate" differs between countries.

No, it really doesn't.

Are there people who think "adequate clothing" means new, designer brand clothes? Yes. Those people are idiots.

Don't you understand that if a country has a GDPPC of $300 per capita, it CAN'T pay all its workers $14,000 a year, no matter what the law says?

The country isn't doing the paying, now is it (unless we're talking about government jobs)?

And, as I said, the wages will be different in different areas.

The irrational buyers aren't swung one way or another by prices.

Actually, that's often the main thing that does swing them. If something seems like a deal, it's time to buy.

So what? It's being done at the expense of other industries. It's a net loss. The country A will become a big seller in its subsidized industry, but will lose out in everything else.

Not necessarily.

Don't you see it's the same situation?

No, it really isn't. You'll pay what you have to for healthcare, because its a necessity. Thus, the bulk of the power on pricing is in the hands of the healthcare industry.

But you also need a job (so that you can pay for things like healthcare). This places the bulk of the power in wage determination in the hands of the company, not the person seeking the job. If your job is a specialized one, that power imbalance is lessened somewhat.

The industry doesn't offer me more "because I expect it", because then they would have to pay $100 per hour to any waitress with an unwarranted self-importance syndrome.

No, they wouldn't. Waiting tables is a relatively unskilled job. If one waitress wants to be paid higher wages, there is always another person willing to take the job for the offered wage.

If we're talking about engineers, on the other hand, you have a much more limited supply of possible workers. If only one of them expects higher wages than the rest, she'll probably be out of a job. But if the group as a whole expects higher wages than the waitress, on the basis of their training, they'll get it.

In some. But what are these jobs?

Custodial jobs, construction, the security guard job you mentioned, some clerical work, some retail work, some food service work.

It really depends on the particular area, industry, and company involved. But we're generally talking about low-wage, low-skill work.

Also, if so, where is your law you claim to protect people against such things now?

Nonexistant. That's part of the problem. Of course, you claimed that there should be no such law.

No, it wouldn't. You couldn't even rent a small studio apartment on that in most parts of the country, much less clothe and feed yourself as well.
A whole apartment all to yourself? You've got very high demands, my dear. Most people in the world can't afford that either, and I don't mean Africa.

Think rather a bed in a shared room, like a college dorm. And it's still a luxury because you don't hot-bunk. Submarine sailors do, so a hot bunk bed is more like a merely an adequate shelter.


Are there people who think "adequate clothing" means new, designer brand clothes? Yes. Those people are idiots.
Adequate clothing is, when available, second-hand, bought for cheap or received at charity giveaways. It still serves its function, even does it well. And both new and second-hand clothing should be repaired to extend its life.


The country isn't doing the paying, now is it (unless we're talking about government jobs)?
And, as I said, the wages will be different in different areas.
It isn't. It couldn't. So it does what you propose, legislate a high minimum wage law (and I mean 50 cents an hour or so), and puts it on the businesses. Which can't pay that much and have to close down.


No, it really isn't. You'll pay what you have to for healthcare, because its a necessity.
Or you won't. You'll get patched at an illegal underground clinic, by illegal immigrant doctors (but still doctors), with prices at a small fraction of the official clinic's ones. You know, Mexicans can be doctors too.
You go to the legal clinic because it can be expensive, but not unaffordable (or so you think until you file for bankrupcy).


But you also need a job (so that you can pay for things like healthcare). This places the bulk of the power in wage determination in the hands of the company, not the person seeking the job. If your job is a specialized one, that power imbalance is lessened somewhat.
The lesson?
Get a specialized job.

You'll have to spend time learning to do it, you have to take a risk by specializing, but it's all well rewarded.

If you didn't take the time to learn, what makes you think you're entitled to a higher wage than an equally unskilled worker across the border, the latitude and the longitude where the amazing event of your birth has happened?
There's nothing.
As long as there are equally unskilled people on the other side of some arbitrary line who agree to work for less, they deserve a job just as much as you do, and a wage just as high as you get.

If that means the wage has to be lower to get a job for both for you, so it should be.


No, they wouldn't. Waiting tables is a relatively unskilled job. If one waitress wants to be paid higher wages, there is always another person willing to take the job for the offered wage.
And why is that this other person deserves the job less than she does?


If we're talking about engineers, on the other hand, you have a much more limited supply of possible workers. If only one of them expects higher wages than the rest, she'll probably be out of a job. But if the group as a whole expects higher wages than the waitress, on the basis of their training, they'll get it.
It's not because we expect a higher wage. It's because, same as with doctors and lawyers, when you need a professional, you need him, and educated professionals are hard to replace. The supply is scarce. As such, the price is set at as high a level as acceptable for the companies.

Waitresses and janitors don't get low pay because they don't want or don't expect higher wages, they get low pay because the supply exceeds the demand.
If there were no minimum wage laws, janitors and security guards would earn even less. The income gap between the unskilled and the professionals would simply widen to not 8-10 times, but 15-20 times.


Custodial jobs, construction, the security guard job you mentioned, some clerical work, some retail work, some food service work.
It's common among janitor and guard positions to have another shift replace you for the while.
Retail and food service work, the same replacement politics, except the others would actually be glad to get your wage for the day.
Clerical aka pink collar, I can't believe this.
BTW, do you want to say all people in these jobs are perfectly healthy and never get sick?


Nonexistant. That's part of the problem. Of course, you claimed that there should be no such law.
Because if the employer really decides to fire the worker, he will find a way.
The overprotective laws don't solve the issue, but create potential for abuse and industry bankrupcy as with American carmakers.

A whole apartment all to yourself? You've got very high demands, my dear. Most people in the world can't afford that either, and I don't mean Africa.

Not necessarily to yourself. But there aren't many places in the world where you'll be living in an apartment with non-family. So, if you're on your own, you're living alone. If not, you've probably got others to support and it'll be even harder to get by on such a small amount.

Adequate clothing is, when available, second-hand, bought for cheap or received at charity giveaways. It still serves its function, even does it well. And both new and second-hand clothing should be repaired to extend its life.

Indeed.

It isn't. It couldn't. So it does what you propose, legislate a high minimum wage law (and I mean 50 cents an hour or so), and puts it on the businesses. Which can't pay that much and have to close down.

If they can't adequately pay their workers, they clearly didn't have a good business model in the first place.

But then, I don't buy that its such a hardship. The places that pay the lowest wages to their workers are often pulling in huge profits. But, of course, that's the motivation behind corporate action. So if they can pay a penny an hour in wages and make larger profits rather than paying a decent wage and making slightly less profits, they will.

Or you won't. You'll get patched at an illegal underground clinic, by illegal immigrant doctors (but still doctors), with prices at a small fraction of the official clinic's ones.

...which is still paying, now isn't it? And now its paying for unregulated medicine that could just as easily kill you as help you.

The lesson?
Get a specialized job.

That requires education. How do you suppose someone who can't even make enough to pay the bills is suddenly going to acquire an education?

As long as there are equally unskilled people on the other side of some arbitrary line who agree to work for less, they deserve a job just as much as you do, and a wage just as high as you get.

They do deserve a higher wage, just like you do. The fact that they are desperate enough to work for an unfair wage doesn't somehow make it right that such a wage is all the company is willing to pay them.

And why is that this other person deserves the job less than she does?

Huh?

It's not because we expect a higher wage. It's because, same as with doctors and lawyers, when you need a professional, you need him, and educated professionals are hard to replace. The supply is scarce. As such, the price is set at as high a level as acceptable for the companies.

The supply is scarce, thus the supply can demand more. If engineers as a whole were willing to work for minimum wage, that's all they'd get.

Waitresses and janitors don't get low pay because they don't want or don't expect higher wages, they get low pay because the supply exceeds the demand.

Yes, the unskilled nature of their job reduces their ability to negotiate for higher wages. And they know it is unskilled, so they don't expect to get paid the same amount they would in a highly skilled job.

It's common among janitor and guard positions to have another shift replace you for the while.
Retail and food service work, the same replacement politics, except the others would actually be glad to get your wage for the day.
Clerical aka pink collar, I can't believe this.
BTW, do you want to say all people in these jobs are perfectly healthy and never get sick?

The policy depends on the company. If you work at a high-scale restaurant, you're probably safe to have a sick day here and there. If you work at greasy spoon down the street, you've got significantly less security. Likewise, if you're on the janitorial staff at a university, you're probably more secure than if you clean warehouses.

And are people in these jobs perfectly healthy and never get sick? Of course not. But many of them go to work sick rather than risk their jobs. And many simply can't afford to miss the hours.

Because if the employer really decides to fire the worker, he will find a way.
The overprotective laws don't solve the issue, but create potential for abuse and industry bankrupcy as with American carmakers.

American carmakers are failing because they had shitty business plans, not because of any laws protecting workers. They're about a decade behind in researching and making the cars consumers actually want (ie. smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles). And now they're making stupid decisions in "saving" their companies. GM, for instance, is planning on pushing just a few of their brands, which makes sense until you realize that they're pushing the brands with fiercely loyal customers to the background (and possibly discontinuing them) and concentration on the brands with lagging sales. It's ridiculous!

Why stop at that? Since the governments, consisting of politicians (professional smooth-talkers) and bureaucrats (professional time-wasters), know better how to run the market, they should also be the only ones to run the business.


Yeah. Or like, no.

Politicians and paperpushers are the perfect people to make sure the regulation gets put in place, and stays in place.

They are not necessarily the perfect people to operate UNDER those regulations.

So - use your skillsets to match your needs. It really isn't that hard to work this out.

One has the right to the products of their labor.


Any response that starts with "One has the rights to..." is probably going to be preachy bullshit stating one person's opinion as though it were meaningful and important.

You don't have the 'right' to the products of your labour.

In some. But what are these jobs?


Theoretically, in 8 states, ANY job that isn't for an expressly defined contract length, or protected by union bargaining.

Theoretically, in thirty-eight states, the same arrangement, with a possible legal protection offered if your employer has 'implied' agreement not to fire without good cause.

Theoretically, in forty-two states, the same arrangement, with a possible protection offered if your employer would be violating 'public policy'.


Theroetically, in every state except Montana, ALL those exceptions are considered invalid unless the employee can satisfy the burden of proof - which means - in reality, forty-nine states of the US effectively allow ANY job not expressly protected by finite contract or union bargaining, to be cancelled at will.

Politicians and paperpushers are the perfect people to make sure the regulation gets put in place, and stays in place.
They are not necessarily the perfect people to operate UNDER those regulations.
Obviously. It's easier to make regulations if you don't have to actually follow them yourself, and don't have the faintest idea of how to operate under them.

The only reason you advocate a system with "private" industry that has zero freedom rather than state-run is because otherwise you'd be dismissed at sight as a commie.


Any response that starts with "One has the rights to..." is probably going to be preachy bullshit Perhaps. I was replying to "one has the right to", so just phrased it in kind.
And I agree, "positive rights" are indeed all just preachy BS.


Theoretically, in thirty-eight states, the same arrangement, with a possible legal protection offered if your employer has 'implied' agreement not to fire without good cause.
So most states have a certain amount of protections even to jobs that are, by contract, at-will.

Also, practically, employers would be doing nothing but hiring and firing if they fired an employee every time they can't come for a day. There are jobs where being on time is crucial, and there are a lot more jobs where the employees actually want to get extra hours.

So if you're qualified for a better job, and an interview is all that separates you from it, you'll find a way if you want to.

Mind that in the jobs at this unskilled-labor bottom, the "interview" basically amounts to checking that you stand on your legs and don't look like a junkie anyway.

Obviously. It's easier to make regulations if you don't have to actually follow them yourself, and don't have the faintest idea of how to operate under them.


Which is not only wrong, but irrelevent.

The person who says that aluminum bats cause more injuries, and thus calls for tighter regulation, doesn't HAVE to be a baseball player. And the fact that he suggests the change, doesn't mean he should then be picked for the team.

It just means that the person best qualified to ASSESS the deal, might not be the person DOING the deal. And the person REGULATING the deal has no necessity of even knowing how the deal is done.

Seriously - at least make an effort.


The only reason you advocate a system with "private" industry that has zero freedom


I didn't say 'zero freedom'.


...rather than state-run is because otherwise you'd be dismissed at sight as a commie.


Not at all. That would be a kind of dumb reason, since I've frequently SELF-identified. 'Owned by the state' might be okay, but it should be RUN by the people best qualified to run it.


Perhaps. I was replying to "one has the right to", so just phrased it in kind.
And I agree, "positive rights" are indeed all just preachy BS.


Any talk of 'rights' as though it were meaningful is 'preachy bullshit'.


So most states have a certain amount of protections even to jobs that are, by contract, at-will.


More importantly, only one of 50 states has any REAL protection from 'at-will' dismissal.


There are jobs where being on time is crucial,


Very few.


...and there are a lot more jobs where the employees actually want to get extra hours.


Which doesn't mean the employer actually wants to pay for them. What's the relevence supposed to be?


So if you're qualified for a better job, and an interview is all that separates you from it, you'll find a way if you want to.

Mind that in the jobs at this unskilled-labor bottom, the "interview" basically amounts to checking that you stand on your legs and don't look like a junkie anyway.

Do you have any idea what you are talking about?

This isn't the first time you've done this 'random-unrelated-crap' thing.

The main reason is bursting of the economic bubble.

Incorrect. Bubbles burst regularly in capitalism and since the Great Depression they haven't usually been so debilitating. The vast majority of economists at the time didn't think anything like the Lost Decade would happen. The negative effects of deflation and low inflation along with various aspects of Japanese culture are the main reasons

Regardless, children are not a heavy financial burden in developed countries. "Childfree" people do it for personal reasons, not economic ones. Removing already very minor subsidies for having children won't affect neither their decisions nor those of people who have or plan to have children. Except for pure welfare leechers, whom we don't need anyway.

This is incorrect. Children are heavy financial burdens. Here's one estimate that doesn't count the cost when women choose to leave the labor market or work part time: Estimate (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/CollegeandFamily/Raisekids/P37245.asp). For childless women the costs to one's career from having children is a big factor in why they didn't have children. Having children put limits on when one can work, and given that women are still the main child caregivers that means she has the most limits. This sends signals to firms that they are less comitted to the firm. Wages and promotions suffer. Add the costs of tuition for all levels of education and the cost increases


Douglas.
And others, read on it yourself if you're interested.

Douglas Aircraft Company is a part of Boeing. It also was subsidized by the military during the Cold War. Please do better when you name these others.

Welfare leechers who don't work their entire life.
Pork barrel projects.
Failing projects like Boston Dig.
It's very "fine" tuning, that's for sure.

Welfare in the US has always been linked to children. Parental labor is work. Even with marginal tax rates around 100% the median usage of AFDC was 3 years, generally as a safety net during divorce, job loss, sickness, ect. When workfare was instituted it, along tight labor market(meaning rising wages) and an increased EITC, helped boost labor market participation. Even then the states that did best were the ones that provided ample work supports( healthcare, subsidized childcare, transportation subsidies, ect).

Pork Barrel projects and whatever the Boston Dig would be classified as are not parts of the welfare state. In any case, the US is not considered a high budget welfare state and thus relatively little fine tuning has occurred.


You'll see for yourself.

I won't hold my breath.

Well, obviously, if by community you mean a bunch of neighbors in their homes, they have no need for molybdenum and vanadium, what would you do with 3 pounds of each?

I mean the business community - it's sold to businesses that need the resource.But the bunch of neighbors in their homes are the people who actually matter.

The blame always falls on what's visible, because at least 99% of the people (that includes many involved in the speculation itself) have no idea whatsoever about what that speculation really is and how it works.

The speculators are like waves, they don't move anything anywhere, just roll it on the surface. Their net output in terms of effect on economies is nil. Like waves raise water up and down, but never change the sea level, the financial speculators shift stock values and exchange rates, but don't really take major capital in or out, and ultimately don't exchange any currency.
What their actions do, however, is give early signals to the prime movers of the market that a certain company or even a certain country is failing, and is a bad place to invest in. That way the prime movers can save their capitals and invest them somewhere where they won't be wasted.Perhaps so, but if this 'early signal' is merely a snowball effect of speculation gone bad, then crisis occurs that needn't.

For most people, it was loans. The former were just given an artificial advantage.
Yes, the student loans are subsidized, but the education still pays off.Perhaps so, but it's unlikely many of these people got loans if the government wasn't backing them.

And if you take a dozen hours a week to work while you study, you don't even need the loans.Are you kidding? With the exception of certain community colleges, college is vastly more expensive than this. Even working full time in addition to college wouldn't pay it off.

For some skills, they aren't even taught professionally, say you can't learn how to use a computer or work on the markets in a college. There are plenty of classes that teach people how to use computers. I'd imagine there are classes that teach people how to read the stock market, too.

Both my parents worked, I still didn't come to school looking around like an idiot and staring in surprise and amazement at strange shapes called letters.

Maybe some parents just take the time to do other things with their kids than toy around with a candy while watching TV and drinking beer on the couch.Perhaps some parents don't have the time to do this, or are too tired to?

A CNC operator that doesn't get lifelong training becomes useless in less than a decade.
Even more so for engineers, programmers, other highly skilled jobs.Highly skilled jobs that all require college degrees to start with.

Well, sorry. You want a pink-toned world where you can be paid handsomely for doing something that is fun, but requires no skill and no effort.

And maybe it is available, but somewhere on the other side of this multiverse.And maybe it will be available here too, if people recognize capitalism for the sham that it is.

Is it a tacit way to admit that you've wasted tax money by schooling in a useless subject?No, it means that there isn't enough years of taxpayer-funded schooling to make it possible for me to do those things.

The person who says that aluminum bats cause more injuries, and thus calls for tighter regulation, doesn't HAVE to be a baseball player. And the fact that he suggests the change, doesn't mean he should then be picked for the team.
But that person isn't a medic either. He's a nobody, just an organic attachment to his rank, which ought have long been replaced by a computer, but wasn't because they'd have to fire him and that would increase unemployment. He has done nothing in his entire life except shuffle papers around and take bribes to sign one and not another. He doesn't know a thing about medicine, baseball, materials, technology.

Perhaps it's obvious that a hit with an aluminum bat is harder than a hit with a wooden one. But tell me, which tankers are safer, double-hull, tri-bulkhead, or mid-deck ones?
If you don't know what each means, I'll explain it, even give schematics.


I didn't say 'zero freedom'.
Obviously you didn't spell it out. It's just that your ideals have freedom asymptotically approaching zero. You want to regulate everything, and that means creating regulation committees. But what will they do after every sensible and useful regulation has been instituted? You can't fire them, it will increase unemployment. There's just one thing left for them to do: creating pointless and useless regulation.


Not at all. That would be a kind of dumb reason, since I've frequently SELF-identified. 'Owned by the state' might be okay, but it should be RUN by the people best qualified to run it.
Exactly. It should be run by the people best qualified to run it.

But for that, they need FREEDOM. They need to be able to make decisions. Adjust to local conditions. Then need to have the right to self-regulate, rather than follow the 1000-Volume Government Rulebook On How To Run Everything.


Which doesn't mean the employer actually wants to pay for them. What's the relevence supposed to be?
He wants as many hours as he needs. He doesn't care which of the skillless, faceless, nameless minimum-wagers does these hours.

Which gives them an opportunity to get a few hours to themselves when they need it, losing just the pay for these hours. I know people who used to work at low-paid unskilled jobs, they regularly swapped hours.

But the bunch of neighbors in their homes are the people who actually matter.
But what are they going to do with 15 pounds of molybdenum, put it on a stand and look at it?


Perhaps so, but if this 'early signal' is merely a snowball effect of speculation gone bad, then crisis occurs that needn't.
If it's a side effect of speculation, the trend just reverses. Graph changes without underlying fundamental changes lead to undervaluing or overvaluing of stocks/futures/currency/etc, which is taken advantage of by other traders or businesses, and reverses the trend.


Perhaps so, but it's unlikely many of these people got loans if the government wasn't backing them.
People who don't really want a post-secondary education are mostly ones who don't really need it.


Are you kidding? With the exception of certain community colleges, college is vastly more expensive than this. Even working full time in addition to college wouldn't pay it off.
http://www.bursar.vt.edu/tuition/
The cost totals out to $13,000-$16,000 per year. This is quite doable with a part-time skilled job.

If you can't work and learn at the same time, the full 6-year course will still cost less than a hundred grand. Cheaper than a good car, about the size of a market lot. And if you take a regular, non-subsidized loan for it, at the same rate as for a car, to repay it over the following 6 years, it amounts to at most $150,000 to repay. 25 grand a year.

Keep in mind that we're talking about education for an engineering job, where you start at $70,000 a year... but don't stay there for long if you're any good. The median income for a professional in US is $100,000. So getting there from nobody only costs you a year's income, or two years' with interest.

That's going to be the best spent plum in your life.


There are plenty of classes that teach people how to use computers. I'd imagine there are classes that teach people how to read the stock market, too.
That teach people how to lose money on the markets. I'm BSing you not, the loss rates among people who took trading classes (usually very expensive) are higher than among those who read some internet and jumped in. Of course, proper tech college math and economics education is helpful, but only in the theory part.

And computer classes were kinda the point. Have you ever seen anything more ridiculous? I can name two things that are more ridiculous than computer classes, Monty Python sketches and a request of a nation in Haven to get a new homeland when his was damaged in a pointless war, but that's pretty much it. They teach you nothing. An 8 year old knows more than they'll teach you over a course, a 10 year old more than they'll teach you in three courses, a 12 year old more than the teachers of these courses.


Perhaps some parents don't have the time to do this, or are too tired to?
Perhaps being a parent isn't as easy as it seems?

It's one of the toughest jobs in your life. Not everyone is fit. Even if you're fit, you have to push yourself to the limit. Maybe beyond what you thought your limit was. Being a parent means being a parent. Parenthood first, your job second, everything else takes a hike.
If you don't agree to undertake this effort, don't reproduce - your genes are not worth preserving. There's a plethora of permanent birth control methods with an illusion of reversibility (so that you still can yourself a man/a woman) these days.


Highly skilled jobs that all require college degrees to start with.
CNC machine operator is a community college degree job. So are most technician jobs. To those not aware, a "community college" has as much in common with a college as a shopping cart has with a car.

If you choose to stay unskilled despite the opportunities all around you, don't think you deserve to earn any more than your equally unskilled colleague in Mexico.


And maybe it will be available here too, if people recognize capitalism for the sham that it is. I see.

But you see, the problem is that someone has to produce goods for you to enjoy them. And if everyone's doing unskilled but fun jobs, there's no one left to stand by the lathe or the assembly line.


No, it means that there isn't enough years of taxpayer-funded schooling to make it possible for me to do those things.
Then take a loan and get privately-funded schooling. Or make a contract with a company that includes it paying for your education, sometimes with a no-interest pay deduction, sometimes not. Such contracts are available in high-demand professions.

But what are they going to do with 15 pounds of molybdenum, put it on a stand and look at it?Band together and start a worker-owned cooperative that uses it?

If it's a side effect of speculation, the trend just reverses. Graph changes without underlying fundamental changes lead to undervaluing or overvaluing of stocks/futures/currency/etc, which is taken advantage of by other traders or businesses, and reverses the trend.If investors believe something is a bad investment, they won't buy into it, even if it's low-priced, especially if it had been priced highly up until recently.

People who don't really want a post-secondary education are mostly ones who don't really need it.There is zero correlation between not wanting a post-secondary education and not being able to afford one.

http://www.bursar.vt.edu/tuition/
The cost totals out to $13,000-$16,000 per year. This is quite doable with a part-time skilled job.People who don't have college degrees don't get skilled jobs, with the rare exception of someone who's been working in the field for 10 years or so, and such a person is unlikely to be going to college in the first place.

If you can't work and learn at the same time, the full 6-year course will still cost less than a hundred grand. Cheaper than a good car, about the size of a market lot. And if you take a regular, non-subsidized loan for it, at the same rate as for a car, to repay it over the following 6 years, it amounts to at most $150,000 to repay. 25 grand a year.Who has a spare $25,000 per year to pay off loans with?

Keep in mind that we're talking about education for an engineering job, where you start at $70,000 a year... but don't stay there for long if you're any good. The median income for a professional in US is $100,000. So getting there from nobody only costs you a year's income, or two years' with interest. Oh, engineers, apparently.

That teach people how to lose money on the markets. I'm BSing you not, the loss rates among people who took trading classes (usually very expensive) are higher than among those who read some internet and jumped in.Do you have a source for this?

Of course, proper tech college math and economics education is helpful, but only in the theory part.Learning theory can be useful.

Perhaps being a parent isn't as easy as it seems?

It's one of the toughest jobs in your life. Not everyone is fit. Even if you're fit, you have to push yourself to the limit. Maybe beyond what you thought your limit was. Being a parent means being a parent. Parenthood first, your job second, everything else takes a hike.
If you don't agree to undertake this effort, don't reproduce - your genes are not worth preserving. There's a plethora of permanent birth control methods with an illusion of reversibility (so that you still can yourself a man/a woman) these days.Certainly parenting is difficult. It is however, as you said, the only thing 98% of people can do that will matter.

CNC machine operator is a community college degree job. So are most technician jobs. To those not aware, a "community college" has as much in common with a college as a shopping cart has with a car.But is nonetheless at least 2 years and thousands of dollars in cost.

If you choose to stay unskilled despite the opportunities all around you, don't think you deserve to earn any more than your equally unskilled colleague in Mexico.There aren't as many opportunities as you seem to think there are.

I see.

But you see, the problem is that someone has to produce goods for you to enjoy them. And if everyone's doing unskilled but fun jobs, there's no one left to stand by the lathe or the assembly line.There are many people who enjoy working with lathes. Assembly lines are unfun, but some people enjoy making the things that are now currently made on assembly lines.

Then take a loan and get privately-funded schooling.Which is what I'm doing. Unfortunately, they don't give out loans to get the 5 or 6 degrees that would provide the type of employment flexibility we were talking about.

Or make a contract with a company that includes it paying for your education, sometimes with a no-interest pay deduction, sometimes not. Such contracts are available in high-demand professions.I don't have a college degree, and therefore don't have the skills to enter a high-demand profession.

Keep in mind that we're talking about education for an engineering job, where you start at $70,000 a year

hahahahahaha, yeah sure

http://money.cnn.com/2005/04/15/pf/college/starting_salaries/degree_worth3.gif

But that person isn't a medic either.


They wouldn't need to be.


He's a nobody, just an organic attachment to his rank,


The same 'argument' could be made for anyone.


...which ought have long been replaced by a computer, but wasn't because they'd have to fire him and that would increase unemployment. He has done nothing in his entire life except shuffle papers around and take bribes to sign one and not another.


What are you blathering about?


He doesn't know a thing about medicine, baseball, materials, technology.


Who doesn't?


Perhaps it's obvious that a hit with an aluminum bat is harder than a hit with a wooden one.


Which might or might not be relevent.


Obviously you didn't spell it out.


Indeed, not only did I not 'spell it out', I was quite clear that what you CLAIM I mean, wasn't what I mean.

Sorry to destroy your strawman. Got to suck for you to actually have to dea with what really goes on, rather than whatever shit you make up.


It's just that your ideals have freedom asymptotically approaching zero.


No, they don't.


You want to regulate everything, and that means creating regulation committees. But what will they do after every sensible and useful regulation has been instituted?


I assume that the people who draw up the regulation documents, would also be the people that would revise, and police them.


You can't fire them, it will increase unemployment.


Your strawman.


There's just one thing left for them to do: creating pointless and useless regulation.


Unless, of course, they are the people who police and develope the already existant regulations.


Exactly. It should be run by the people best qualified to run it.

But for that, they need FREEDOM.


No one needs 'freedom' in all capital letters.


They need to be able to make decisions. Adjust to local conditions. Then need to have the right to self-regulate, rather than follow the 1000-Volume Government Rulebook On How To Run Everything.


No - that's exactly what they DON'T need.

People can't be trusted to self-regulate.


He wants as many hours as he needs. He doesn't care which of the skillless, faceless, nameless minimum-wagers does these hours.

Which gives them an opportunity to get a few hours to themselves when they need it, losing just the pay for these hours. I know people who used to work at low-paid unskilled jobs, they regularly swapped hours.

I'd kind of hoped that you'd use the opportunity to explain what you meant, rather than further obfuscating.

They wouldn't need to be.
They would need to be. You have to be a doctor to be qualified to tell what is good for one's health and what is not.
You have to be a sports medic who has treated both Al and wooden bat injuries to make a conclusion on which to ban.


Who doesn't?
Who doesn't know anything? The bureaucrat.
Who does? A professional in the field.


I assume that the people who draw up the regulation documents, would also be the people that would revise, and police them.
Of course they wouldn't. A lawmaker and an inspector are very different jobs.
They would just remain in place and continue overregulating, since they have to appear active to keep their jobs.


No one needs 'freedom' in all capital letters.
No - that's exactly what they DON'T need.
People can't be trusted to self-regulate.
I recall we once had a talk about why haven't you moved to Cuba or China, and you had a fairly good reason. But I understand how hard it is for you in the free world where freedom is considered a worthy ideal in itself, not merely a means to something.


I'd kind of hoped that you'd use the opportunity to explain what you meant, rather than further obfuscating.
Haven't I explained it? Most minimum-wage jobs allow you one or another way to get a few hours to go to the interview for the proper job.

*pokes Vault. Points at last post Vault hasn't responded to.*

They would need to be. You have to be a doctor to be qualified to tell what is good for one's health and what is not.


No, you don't...


You have to be a sports medic who has treated both Al and wooden bat injuries to make a conclusion on which to ban.


Again, no, you don't. Even more so on this one, because this kind of judgement can be made based entirely on data.


Who doesn't know anything? The bureaucrat.


Baseless, thus - ignored.


Who does? A professional in the field.


So, you're abandoning any pretence at realism, now?


Of course they wouldn't. A lawmaker and an inspector are very different jobs.


Not implicitly.


They would just remain in place and continue overregulating, since they have to appear active to keep their jobs.


Yeah, you constantly say stuff like this.


I recall we once had a talk about why haven't you moved to Cuba or China, and you had a fairly good reason. But I understand how hard it is for you in the free world where freedom is considered a worthy ideal in itself, not merely a means to something.


'freedom' is meaningless.

Believing that deregulation is bad doesn't mean you have to live in China or Cuba... which is seemingly uncomfortable for you. Deregulation hurts the many to benefit the few - thus, I think it's clearly to be opposed. But 'deregulation' and 'freedom' aren't the same thing, so I wonder why you constantly pretend they are.

Only if we would be sending all the anarchists with them. :)

Only if we would be sending all the anarchists with them. :)

What makes you think Anarchists would want them?

What makes you think Anarchists would want them?
It's more like the other way around. And the OP didn't make it sound like they had a choice.

Also.. they're basically the same anyway. With ideology seemingly being circular here.

Band together and start a worker-owned cooperative that uses it?
So why not just start a corporation, which is based around what products the people want to buy, rather than what resource is available nearby?


If investors believe something is a bad investment, they won't buy into it, even if it's low-priced, especially if it had been priced highly up until recently.
Only if it's a bad investment, and bad and good are relative to the cost. When a commodity is oversold, the time comes to buy. Those who do it, win.


There is zero correlation between not wanting a post-secondary education and not being able to afford one.
[...]
Who has a spare $25,000 per year to pay off loans with?
You disprove your argument yourself. If you want a post-secondary education, you'll get it despite the cost, and pay back the loans with your new salary that's incomparable with those for unskilled labor.


Oh, engineers, apparently.
Obviously you're not going to college just to work as a janitor ever after.


hahahahahaha, yeah sure
Ah, and you've chosen the wrong company, or maybe the wrong subset of engineering.

http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=Naval+architect&l1=Virginia

And seeing how many people try to do it for free in NS, you can't say designing ships is a dull job. I definitely can't. It's not easy, but you get a feel for what you're doing. The only better engineering jobs I can think of are designing sports cars and civic superprojects, but these are way too hard to get.



Do you have a source for this?
I might find one. So far it's based on experience and communication with other traders. The self-learners usually do well, while the victims of advertising take on the markets with their expensive special course and 5-15 grand deposit, and lose it all.
Obv. it still takes 4-6 years before you get consistent profits on large sums, but ones who get there are pretty much universally self-learners.


But is nonetheless at least 2 years and thousands of dollars in cost.
Well, and what do you want? To get a massive boost in your income for nothing? Free candy?
It's about as cheap as it gets, less than the increase in your income in a single year.

:( :headbang: http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=janitor&l1=Virginia

:eek: http://www.nvcc.edu/curschedule/tuition.htm (you need about 70 hours)

:hail: :hail: :hail:

:salute::salute::salute:
http://www.indeed.com/salary?q1=CNC+operator&l1=Virginia

:cool:


There are many people who enjoy working with lathes. Assembly lines are unfun, but some people enjoy making the things that are now currently made on assembly lines.
Yes. But we need more. Which means some have to get jobs they don't enjoy, and do what has to be done.


Which is what I'm doing. Unfortunately, they don't give out loans to get the 5 or 6 degrees that would provide the type of employment flexibility we were talking about.
You want 5 or 6 degrees? Sorry, when we invent a way to extend the life infinitely (and I really hope we do, I'll still be too young to leave even if I turn a century), you just may get them.

But until then, you have to diversify your education. Get the main job degree, a self-learned backup craft, another skill for your free time, and then extend the skills you see you have a knack for.


I don't have a college degree, and therefore don't have the skills to enter a high-demand profession.
Well, get one. In 4-6 years the recession will be over, and there you come with a degree.
As for advice on which, I'm not sure if naval architecture is for you, but it may be a good choice, the demand is going to go through the ceiling in a few years. I mean the ceiling on the next floor, it's way through the original ceiling already. A used ship in a good condition costs up to twice more than a new one today, just because you get a used one immediately and a new one has to be ordered a year before.
It's going to be even better for you, there's the technical progress, and a plethora of radical changes in naval architecture is long overdue. Turbinization, electric transmissions, dynamic lift, lightweight materials, thin-skin design, adhesive assembly, composite construction, and I haven't even started. The recession that will halt the demand for "just more ships, now" will allow time to implement them, and when it ends, they'll need lots of specialists to work on the new designs. You're not going to be looking at five figures except maybe the first couple years which are just practice.

Haven't I explained it? Most minimum-wage jobs allow you one or another way to get a few hours to go to the interview for the proper job.

It very much depends on how much you depend on your minimum wage job for survival. I know a couple of people who have got away and gone for interviews, but they depend on their spouse's paycheques (which aren't very big, their spouses are grad students it's enough to get by though). However, there are a number of people who are working two minimum wage jobs and need their 60 hour work weeks at minimum wage to feed their families and keep a roof over their head. These people aren't going to be able to escape for a couple of hours for a job interview.

No, you don't...
Bored now.

Apart from the piece below, you haven't said anything in this post except that doesn't amount to "I disagree".

'freedom' is meaningless.
Believing that deregulation is bad doesn't mean you have to live in China or Cuba... which is seemingly uncomfortable for you. Deregulation hurts the many to benefit the few - thus, I think it's clearly to be opposed. But 'deregulation' and 'freedom' aren't the same thing, so I wonder why you constantly pretend they are.
No, deregulation hurts few to benefit many. The less regulation, the cheaper the products are. Of course if safety is deregulated there will be some incidents that will hurt a few people, but the benefit of cheapness is for everyone.

Eventually, however, people will stop buying faulty products, and the free enterprise will self-develop internal quality control that will cater to the discerning customer.

This is what happened to ships. Long before the governments (kings back then) were bothered with such things as regulation. Lloyd's refused to insure merchant ships that didn't fit certain standards. Eventually, all ships were built to the Lloyd's Register standards, which have developed into a comprehensive and extremely practical guide on naval architecture. The LRS rules have stood the test of time, developing and improving, and govern ship design to this day. The results are much better than with governmental regulation of car safety. It's an excellent example of self-regulation. Lloyd's rules aren't enforced by any government. They are only upheld by the shipping industry - most ports won't risk admitting a non-compliant ship.



It very much depends on how much you depend on your minimum wage job for survival. [...] However, there are a number of people who are working two minimum wage jobs and need their 60 hour work weeks at minimum wage to feed their families and keep a roof over their head. These people aren't going to be able to escape for a couple of hours for a job interview.
A couple of hours isn't going to make you go bankrupt. You can always save 20 bucks on something else.

The problem isn't lack of time, the problem is that most people at minimum wage jobs simply don't have the skills that would get them a better paying job. Although there are hundreds of well-paying unskilled jobs, like bartenders. You just need to have something apart from just having two legs and two arms to get them.


*pokes Vault. Points at last post Vault hasn't responded to.*
Yeah. Too many posts here. Yours is certainly very interesting, and raises good points I agree with, only have to add some clarifications. I'll reply to it ASAP.

A couple of hours isn't going to make you go bankrupt. You can always save 20 bucks on something else.

Yeah, you can always tell your children that today isn't the day for supper.

The problem isn't lack of time, the problem is that most people at minimum wage jobs simply don't have the skills that would get them a better paying job. Although there are hundreds of well-paying unskilled jobs, like bartenders. You just need to have something apart from just having two legs and two arms to get them.

Yes, I can see where having to drop out of school at 16 to support your siblings because your parents can't for whatever reason means that you should have to spend the rest of your life working 60 hour work weeks between two jobs that don't give you any health benefits.

It's more like the other way around. And the OP didn't make it sound like they had a choice.

Also.. they're basically the same anyway. With ideology seemingly being circular here.

Anarchists resist external government. Libertarianism is extremist capitalism that lacks a social conscience. The two things may occassionally overlap, but they're not the same thing.

Apart from the piece below, you haven't said anything in this post except that doesn't amount to "I disagree".


You mean, pointing out that your arguments were bullshit, amounts to disagreeing?

Because your argument WAS bullshit. And I'm pretty sure you know it.


No, deregulation hurts few to benefit many. The less regulation, the cheaper the products are. Of course if safety is deregulated there will be some incidents that will hurt a few people, but the benefit of cheapness is for everyone.

Eventually, however, people will stop buying faulty products, and the free enterprise will self-develop internal quality control that will cater to the discerning customer.


Wrong on so many levels I have to assume you are deliberately posting fabrications to try to establish a point.

Deregulation hurts the majority to put a few extra dollars in the pockets of those in a position to profit.

The idea that 'the less regulation the cheaper the products' is so obviously bullshit, I have to wonder if you honestly believe it. I don't think you honestly do - it's obvious that regulation has NO implicit link to cost. If you have two identical products, one of which is 'regulated' and one of which isn't - but they are identical... then neither is cheaper because of regulation or lack of it.

The ONLY way in which your argument is supportable - if you are arguing that the unregulated product isn't as worthy as the regulated product... and thus can be made cheaper because it's not as sturdy, or it's made of inferior material.

Which is hardly something we should encourage.

The argument that 'people will eventually stop buying faulty goods' is also bullshit, and again, it's hard to believe you're really willing make the argument.

You'd have to be pretty naive of the real business world to believe that's how it works. People will buy cheap goods even if they ARE inferior... bridge collapses in recent years are evidence that this happens at every level. And this is compounded because businesses lie. They lie by omission, and they lie by deliberate obfuscation or distortion. They lie on product ingredients. They lie in product descriptions. They lie in the claims they make about the products, services, or benefits they market.


This is what happened to ships. Long before the governments (kings back then) were bothered with such things as regulation. Lloyd's refused to insure merchant ships that didn't fit certain standards. Eventually, all ships were built to the Lloyd's Register standards, which have developed into a comprehensive and extremely practical guide on naval architecture. The LRS rules have stood the test of time, developing and improving, and govern ship design to this day. The results are much better than with governmental regulation of car safety. It's an excellent example of self-regulation. Lloyd's rules aren't enforced by any government. They are only upheld by the shipping industry - most ports won't risk admitting a non-compliant ship.


Interesting that your example of 'self-regulation' is an illustration of an external body regulating.

Yeah, you can always tell your children that today isn't the day for supper.
You have good comprehension. Yes. An adult can go for 2 weeks without food with no permanent damage, a child for a week.

Though practically they'll still have supper, it will just consist of rice, fried potatoes, bread, or other low-cost, non-delicious food that costs a dollar for a day's supper for the whole family, and is always stored somewhere in the house.
Check Walmart prices if you don't believe me. With just a single day of minimum-wage work, you can buy enough food for 3 people for a month.


Yes, I can see where having to drop out of school at 16 to support your siblings because your parents can't for whatever reason means that you should have to spend the rest of your life working 60 hour work weeks between two jobs that don't give you any health benefits.
You don't have to. If your parents are dead, you should collect their life insurance, if they aren't yet, request euthanasia. That's what life insurance is for, so that you don't have to drop out of school.

Afterward, spend the insurance money carefully. Your siblings should get jobs as early as possible, 11-12 or so, and jobs that allow them to develop skills. Ask your relatives and friends, some should have a workshop or a garage where the kids could be useful. In time, they'll develop craftsman skills.

I don't think you honestly do - it's obvious that regulation has NO implicit link to cost. If you have two identical products, one of which is 'regulated' and one of which isn't - but they are identical... then neither is cheaper because of regulation or lack of it.
No.
The regulated product's price includes the cost of control, inspections, certification, bureaucratic expenses.
And the regulated product's manufacturer had to pay taxes to fund the regulators.

So the identical regulated product costs more.



The argument that 'people will eventually stop buying faulty goods' is also bullshit, and again, it's hard to believe you're really willing make the argument.
I have stopped buying faulty goods long ago.


People will buy cheap goods even if they ARE inferior...
So who are you to take the right to do it away from them?


Interesting that your example of 'self-regulation' is an illustration of an external body regulating.
It's not external to the industry. Shipping insurance is a part of the shipping industry. The Lloyd's rules are not only developed in constant cooperation with actual shipbuilders, but they are based on the best shipbuilding practices that prove cost-efficient.

No.
The regulated product's price includes the cost of control, inspections, certification, bureaucratic expenses.
And the regulated product's manufacturer had to pay taxes to fund the regulators.

So the identical regulated product costs more.


Horsepuckey. Both cost the same, because they both pay the regulator, or they both don't.

Lame.

I have stopped buying faulty goods long ago.


No you didn't.


So who are you to take the right to do it away from them?


The 'right' to have shitty goods palmed off on them because they know no better?

You have curious ideas of what a 'right' entails.


It's not external to the industry. Shipping insurance is a part of the shipping industry. The Lloyd's rules are not only developed in constant cooperation with actual shipbuilders, but they are based on the best shipbuilding practices that prove cost-efficient.

Fat man tampons.

If you're going to claim that the 'shipping industry' includes everything that figures into it, then the regulators ARE part of the industry. If you're actually going to refer to a less arbitrary definition... like - only the ACTUAL parts of the industry are referred to as part of the industry - then you were clearly talking through your arse.

Horsepuckey. Both cost the same, because they both pay the regulator, or they both don't.
This is a situation of a country that has regulation vs. one that doesn't.


No you didn't.
Yes I did. When a quality product is available, I buy it, not the cheapest alternative.


The 'right' to have shitty goods palmed off on them because they know no better?
If someone doesn't have the money to buy clothes that don't look like complete crap (http://www.walmart.com/apparel) and cars that aren't built like tin cans and are good to drive (http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/911/), who are you to tell them they should walk naked along the highways?


If you're going to claim that the 'shipping industry' includes everything that figures into it, then the regulators ARE part of the industry.
Only if the industry has actually asked them to be there.

The first difference is that insurance is optional. The second difference between Lloyd's and a government is that Lloyd's actually provides an extremely useful service, improving their profits, while the government just hinders commerce.

This is a situation of a country that has regulation vs. one that doesn't.


No it isn't. Don't talk crap.


Yes I did. When a quality product is available, I buy it, not the cheapest alternative.


No you don't. I doubt you even know.

Paying more doesn't mean you're getting a better quality product - if that's what you think.


If someone doesn't have the money to buy clothes that don't look like complete crap (http://www.walmart.com/apparel) and cars that aren't built like tin cans and are good to drive (http://www.porsche.com/usa/models/911/), who are you to tell them they should walk naked along the highways?


If poorer quality products were regulated out of the market place, market forces would re-order the market such that demand and supply would meet at a new level.

Seriously, just one term of business studies, or something, would stop you making these embarassing textbook errors.


Only if the industry has actually asked them to be there.

The first difference is that insurance is optional. The second difference between Lloyd's and a government is that Lloyd's actually provides an extremely useful service, improving their profits, while the government just hinders commerce.

What a load of crap. You can't provide an actual example, so you try to wing it, and when called on it, you regurgitate this kind of tripe. It's not self-regulated - end of story.

No it isn't.
Yes it is. It's a libertarianism-devoted thread and I decide what the sample situation is. Not you. If I say we're comparing presence of regulation vs. lack of it, you're in no position to change the rules.

You're just trying to demagogue your way out of a stupid thing you've said. First you said that regulation doesn't make goods more expensive, and when I pointed out that it does and how exactly it does, you resorted to a ridiculous and internally inconsistent argument of an impossible situation where "they both pay the regulator".
You aren't concerned with the fact that if a country has regulation of certain products, it can't build "unregulated" products of that kind. You aren't even concerned with arguing, all you're doing is going on offensive to avoid the need to defend your position.



If poorer quality products were regulated out of the market place, market forces would re-order the market such that demand and supply would meet at a new level.
This is absolutely correct.

So, if shit cars were regulated out of the marketplace (I've linked to some non-shit cars), the demand and supply would meet at a much higher price, so most people would have to walk along the highway, as they wouldn't be able to afford a car.



What a load of crap. You can't provide an actual example,
I have provided an actual example. The rest is a result of your lack of knowledge of the context and of how Lloyds' regulations are different from governmental ones.

...The Porsche fanboying killed it for me, personally. :(

Ew. You're biased about Porsches, if you want to provide an example of good cars, don't link Porsches.

You're biased about Porsches, if you want to provide an example of good cars, don't link Porsches.
Obviously. Good cars are Toyotas (MR2, Celica, Supra), Hondas (S2000), Mazdas (RX7, RX8), Nissans (Skyline GTR). Porsches are great cars, not merely good ones.


All I did was give a list of cars that aren't crap and deserve to stay on the road. Not a complete list, but not a small one either, 15 cars, or 20 if you look at other pages, 26 counting the trucks. It should be enough variety for everyone.

Obviously. Good cars are Toyotas (MR2, Celica, Supra), Hondas (S2000), Mazdas (RX7, RX8), Nissans (Skyline GTR). Porsches are great cars, not merely good one.


All I did was give a list of cars that aren't crap and deserve to stay on the road. Not a complete list, but not a small one either, 15 cars, or 20 if you look at other pages. It should be enough variety for anyone.Why not go for green?

Like a Telsa Motors Roadster, which is faster than the regular 911. (And low-emission. :p)

Or an Ultimate Aero (EV coming out in 2009. Low emission, 200+ mph, ftw.), which beats the ever living hell out of any production car in existence at the moment.

The Fisker Karama also looks very nice.

Oh, and let's not forget the Tango Electric Car! 0-60 in 4 seconds? Hell, yeah. (And it would surprise anyone when you blow by them in that weird ass looking car. :D)

Why not go for green?
Could go for green too.


http://www.porsche.com/filestore.aspx/normal.jpg?pool=usa&type=image&id=997-2nd-c2scab-overview-jd08-2-xle&lang=none&filetype=normal



But I think green works best on classic models, the 356 ones.

I mean, just look at it:

http://www.heritageclassics.com/porsche/64grn356c2/A1.jpg


Like a Telsa Motors Roadster, which is faster than the regular 911. (And low-emission. :p)
It's only faster from 0 to 60... slower in all other aspects. Electric motors produce massive torque at low speeds. But more importantly, there are no tations to recharge these anyway... :(

I could live with having to stay in a restaurant (as long as it's an actual restaurant) for a couple hours while the car is recharging, but not with having to be towed back and start the trip all over. On a bicycle because it has more range.


Or an Ultimate Aero (EV coming out in 2009. Low emission, 200+ mph, ftw.), which beats the ever living hell out of any production car in existence at the moment.
"Low emission" AIUI just means it has a modern catalytic converter. It's certainly not low carbon emission.

Ultimate Aero would be good if it wasn't a death capsule on wheels, too unreliable and unwieldy.

Two reasons.
1) Because it would be much less efficient than a normal workforce.


But it may be more expensive. With slaves, you only cover the basic costs of keeping them alive and never have to worry about strikes or people leaving the workforce beyond the price of a bullet. If you work them to death, there are always more slaves you can take.

Automation lowers the need for mass human labor, but that only works for highly repetitive labor. A dozen enslaved Bengali children making hand woven carpets for sale in the Western world is far cheaper and more protitable than hiring trained professionals to do so. And if one trained professional weaver can produce three carpets for every single Bengali slave child, just increase the number of slaves working for you. Still cheaper than the trained professional.


2) Because libertarianism doesn't equal anarchy. On the contrary, it excludes anarchy, and requires state as a protector of rights and liberties ["negative" rights, not the positive wants]. These concepts both involve more freedom than the status quo, they're common in that, but they're distinct.


And one of the things libertarianism wants is no taxes. How is the state supposed to provide these protections without the tools of enforcement taxation makes possible?

"Low emission" AIUI just means it has a modern catalytic converter. It's certainly not low carbon emission.

Ultimate Aero would be good if it wasn't a death capsule on wheels, too unreliable and unwieldy.I was speaking of the electric Aero that's scheduled for '09 release. :p

And can you name a car for me that isn't death-on-wheels at speeds above 150 mph? (Racers notwithstanding, of course.)

I was speaking of the electric Aero that's scheduled for '09 release. Another 50-mile-range recordsetter.

And can you name a car for me that isn't death-on-wheels at speeds above 150 mph? (Racers notwithstanding, of course.)
Porsche GT2 or GT3, with its roll cage in place. Porsches combine high driveability, active safety, and excellent passive safety. Unlike most cars of comparable performance, they're built of materials that actually can absorb impact energy.
As long as you don't go headfirst into a pole, but merely spin out and crash or slam into a safety barrier, you're going to be OK.


But it may be more expensive. With slaves, you only cover the basic costs of keeping them alive and never have to worry about strikes or people leaving the workforce beyond the price of a bullet. If you work them to death, there are always more slaves you can take.
Not without going to war. Where your slave soldiers will at best avoid combat, more likely turn against you.


Automation lowers the need for mass human labor, but that only works for highly repetitive labor. A dozen enslaved Bengali children making hand woven carpets for sale in the Western world is far cheaper and more protitable than hiring trained professionals to do so.
You can always just print the picture on the standard machine-made carpets and claim they're hand-woven by enslaved Bengali children.


And one of the things libertarianism wants is no taxes. How is the state supposed to provide these protections without the tools of enforcement taxation makes possible?
By selling and renting things that are common property managed by state. Land rent, selling natural resources, selling pollution permits, and so on.

Not without going to war. Where your slave soldiers will at best avoid combat, more likely turn against you.


The human trafficking trade is alive and well, without the need for active war. Children in this trade are either destined for use as prostitutes, slave labor, or other questionable activities. Countries where poverty is particularly high, have parents selling off children for comparatively pitiful sums of money. It's the realities of economics. When you have nothing to survive on, your only assets usually end up being your organs or your children.

And the performance and widespread use of child soldiers by Burundi, the CFA, Chad military, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Sierra Lone, Somalia, Sudan, Uganda and Zimbabwe certainly speak against your idea of how ineffective they will be. And that's just Africa. Burma, Iran, Iraq, Laos, Nepal, the Abu Sayaff terrorist group, Moro Islamic Liberation Front and LTTE make use of child soldiers with none of the problems you speak of. People can be broken down, remolded into unfeeling, killing weapons. Breaking down children is even easier.

Raid the schools/villages they reside in, kill the teachers and parents in front of them, force march them to your camp where initiation involves rape/beatings. After they are sufficiently broken, put guns in their hands and have them break all ties with the past, usually in the form of gunning down their surviving relatives. Provide narcotics to tie them even closer to you, and before long, they'll be ready to repeat the cycle.


You can always just print the picture on the standard machine-made carpets and claim they're hand-woven by enslaved Bengali children.

Pfft. That's an amusing conceit. The people who have the money to buy hand woven carpets tend to be the sort who aren't so easily fooled by that sort of cheap imitation.


By selling and renting things that are common property managed by state. Land rent, selling natural resources, selling pollution permits, and so on.

Common property? Isn't that against the ideals of libertarianism?

As long as you don't go headfirst into a pole, but merely spin out and crash or slam into a safety barrier, you're going to be OK.I guess you missed the part about racing notwithstanding, huh?

Last I checked, most roads don't have safety barriers.

Yes it is. It's a libertarianism-devoted thread and I decide what the sample situation is. Not you. If I say we're comparing presence of regulation vs. lack of it, you're in no position to change the rules.


I'm not changing the rules. You cited a 'rule', and then had to redefine the parameters to try to make your rule fit. At least try an honest argument.


You're just trying to demagogue your way out of a stupid thing you've said.


I didn't say anything stupid. You suggested something immediately clear as untrue, and have tried to weasal it round to some situation where you can pretend that - not ONLY was that 'what you meant'... but that that was also 'what you said'.


First you said that regulation doesn't make goods more expensive, and when I pointed out that it does and how exactly it does,


You pointed out no such thing. You tried to wrangle a situation that would justify it.


... you resorted to a ridiculous and internally inconsistent argument of an impossible situation where "they both pay the regulator".


Of course they do. Welcome to a tax economy.


You aren't concerned with the fact that if a country has regulation of certain products, it can't build "unregulated" products of that kind.


Wow. Reality... you know, it's not just a place to visit.

'Unregulated' products get made in regulated economies. I'm really questioning your ability to provide any valid input in this discussion.


You aren't even concerned with arguing, all you're doing is going on offensive to avoid the need to defend your position.


My position doesn't need defending. Regulation obviously leads to better products, and greater 'service' to customers. You're the one who is trying to argue that DEregulation would benefit anyone OTHER than the shareholders.


This is absolutely correct.

So, if shit cars were regulated out of the marketplace (I've linked to some non-shit cars), the demand and supply would meet at a much higher price, so most people would have to walk along the highway, as they wouldn't be able to afford a car.


What a pile of crap. You could probably find a first year business course online. Markets resettling at lower prices really IS firts-year stuff.


I have provided an actual example. The rest is a result of your lack of knowledge of the context and of how Lloyds' regulations are different from governmental ones.

You provided no such thing. You claimed that industry can self-regulate... and when pressed for an example, cited an example of an EXTERNALLY regulated industry.

That's not going to change because you want it to be the other way.

I guess you missed the part about racing notwithstanding, huh?
These cars have the entire proper interior.


Last I checked, most roads don't have safety barriers.
Then it's even better - you slide off the road and come to a relatively gentle stop, losing only your suspension.




The human trafficking trade is alive and well, without the need for active war.
Only as long as there are free children to take in poorer nations.

Take the third world out of the picture and see France try to steal and traffic humans out of Britain.


Raid the schools/villages they reside in, kill the teachers and parents in front of them, force march them to your camp where initiation involves rape/beatings.
But these child soldiers won't be able to shoot the targets or take part in proper modern combat. They'd have like a 1:100 kill ratio against US Marine Corps. Maybe even 1:200. That is is USAF doesn't do what it's supposed to, then it's more like 1:10,000.


Pfft. That's an amusing conceit. The people who have the money to buy hand woven carpets tend to be the sort who aren't so easily fooled by that sort of cheap imitation.
Give them drugs that suppress mental capabilities.


Common property? Isn't that against the ideals of libertarianism?
That would make marriage impossible. So no, it isn't in any way.

Even in *anarcho-capitalism* (an extreme form of libertarianism) government still can exist, just as a public company jointly owned by the people.

These cars have the entire proper interior.

Then it's even better - you slide off the road and come to a relatively gentle stop, losing only your suspension.You've got your Porsche on lockdown, man. :p

Why don't you own one yet? Price, or availability? (My dream bike was easy to find, and easily affordable. ;))

I didn't say anything stupid.
You did:
regulation has NO implicit link to cost. If you have two identical products, one of which is 'regulated' and one of which isn't - but they are identical... then neither is cheaper because of regulation or lack of it.


Of course they do. Welcome to a tax economy.
In order to compare identical products built with regulation in place and without regulation in place, we need two countries and two economies.
The latter might not even be a tax economy.


Regulation obviously leads to better products, and greater 'service' to customers. Markets resettling at lower prices really IS firts-year stuff.
If you genuinely believe that regulation to improve the quality of the products will result in them having LOWER prices, you don't need an economics course - you need a doctor.


You provided no such thing. You claimed that industry can self-regulate... and when pressed for an example, cited an example of an EXTERNALLY regulated industry.
The regulations that are in place there are 1) optional (for instance the military doesn't follow them, the private boats don't either), 2) come from within the industry itself.

A more significant point, though, is that this regulation and doesn't involve or need any governments to work.

You've got your Porsche on lockdown, man. :p
Why don't you own one yet? Price, or availability? (My dream bike was easy to find, and easily affordable. ;))
Price.

The economic collapse has damaged my financial condition, devaluing most of my stocks. While I have pulled out in time to avoid major losses, I have lost a major source of income by that. What's almost as bad, while my job is stable and the salary hasn't dropped, the bonus is nowhere as good, so the other income source is reduced as well.

So I can buy one now, but not as good one as I'd like to. And I'm not going to withdraw the money I'm using for trading (i.e. extra earnings) just so that I can buy the car a little earlier. I'm still a couple weeks to 29, and I've decided that by the day I turn 30, I'm going to finally get a good car, take a long vacation, and go on a Grand Tour of the country and a couple neighboring ones. The plan was to do it mostly on stock investments income, but it has failed so far.

However, I still have almost a year to earn the missing sum, and with the volatility of markets these days, it's not as hard as it seems. The fall of the British pound, for instance, has moved me ahead as much as half a year of work would. That was a one-time luck, though, but still, the fluctuations of USDCAD and the rapid rise of gold give an opportunity to make some extra chips. It has to be enough for the car, tuning it, paying for the gas and travel expenses, and compensating the income lost due to the vacation.

Only as long as there are free children to take in poorer nations.

Take the third world out of the picture and see France try to steal and traffic humans out of Britain.

How, do you propose turning the third world into a giant graveyard? Then it'd be one of the developing countries or one of the less powerful first world ones that will end up being turned into a mess of factionalism and infighting. Without cheap labor and resources, economic models dependent on them, namely, every first world country, will end up collapsing, with the militarily strong ones using their forces to either suppress local dissent or annex foreign resources.

So if that's what you want, I guess it works. Hooray for self destructive impulses.


But these child soldiers won't be able to shoot the targets or take part in proper modern combat. They'd have like a 1:100 kill ratio against US Marine Corps. Maybe even 1:200. That is is USAF doesn't do what it's supposed to, then it's more like 1:10,000.

Given that child soldiers are cheap to train, plentiful to source from, and are either used as suicide units or combat units against other militia groups and civilian populaces who gives a flying fig what their performance rating is against an expensive USMC soldier?


Give them drugs that suppress mental capabilities.


You'd fail as a businessman. Really.


That would make marriage impossible. So no, it isn't in any way.

Even in *anarcho-capitalism* (an extreme form of libertarianism) government still can exist, just as a public company jointly owned by the people.

A government that can't get the resources and force to make people do what it tells them to is an ineffectual one half a step from total collapse.

How, do you propose turning the third world into a giant graveyard?
Doesn't matter how.

Without cheap labor and resources, economic models dependent on them, namely, every first world country,
They aren't dependent on cheap labor and resources.
These things provide a boost to first world economies, but nothing more.

Everything that's produced in the third world is also produced in the first world. American oil and uranium come from Canada. Pretty much all other resources are either internal or Canadian. US is the world's largest food exporter and more than completely feeds itself. While China makes some chips and boards cheaper than US, a lot of them are still made in US and EU, say AMD's CPU come from Germany, and these are the cheap CPUs.
Clothes are the only major product that's genuinely significantly cheaper made in China, but it only applies to the cheapest clothing like T-shirts and boxers.

Without the third world, the first world would be a little less well off, and that's pretty much it.


Given that child soldiers are cheap to train, plentiful to source from,
They're only cheap and plentiful as long as there's the pool to take them from. Once it's destroyed, say with a biological attack - that would be devastating with zero healthcare - the cheapness is over and you have to spend your own population, which isn't as plentiful. Child soldiers didn't save Germany.

It's like running cars on used vegetable oil, it's only free as long as no one apart from rare enthusiasts wants it.


A government that can't get the resources and force to make people do what it tells them to is an ineffectual one half a step from total collapse.
Only if what it tells people to do is contrary to what they want to do.
In which case its collapse just might be a good thing.

A government with limited power would be forced to only act as an instrument of the will of the people. Not even as a representative democracy. Closer to a direct one. As long as it sticks to only doing what 90% of the populace supports, it will be successful.


And even in the absence of a formal government, public-supported laws just might get backing from big players, who play long-term and plan for decades and centuries, and are more interested in, for instance, letting the children grow up, get a skill, and using them for 50 years, rather than allowing small-time crooks to exploit them for a year and kill.

Governments, civil rights, freedom, they aren't really about benevolence. They are about what works best. In the big picture, the less obvious the leash you keep the people on, the better they work. Slaves hate you, only work when directly forced to, and wish you harm; feudal peasants have a bit of autonomy and at least want to get done with the forced labor quicker; taxed peasants are interested in producing more so more is left after tax. And the modern economic leash works the best - a 30-year mortgage holds you stronger than any chains and collars.

You have good comprehension. Yes. An adult can go for 2 weeks without food with no permanent damage, a child for a week.

Though practically they'll still have supper, it will just consist of rice, fried potatoes, bread, or other low-cost, non-delicious food that costs a dollar for a day's supper for the whole family, and is always stored somewhere in the house.
Check Walmart prices if you don't believe me. With just a single day of minimum-wage work, you can buy enough food for 3 people for a month.

Yes, if food is the only thing you have to pay for. Let's ignore the fact that you're not usually trading a few hours with a coworker, you have to trade an entire shift usually. So this is a full day's work gone for an interview. Let's also ignore housing prices, a significant portion of income often goes to cover those. So now you're missing $80. Suddenly yes, you aren't eating at all. Although in a libertarian model where businesses are allowed to self regulated, the minimum wage probably drops anyway (not that it isn't already low enough that it doesn't meet the cost of living).

You don't have to. If your parents are dead, you should collect their life insurance,

Your parents were too poor to afford life insurance.

if they aren't yet, request euthanasia.

Oh yes, easy for you to say. What if your parents are relatively fine, but they're just sick enough that they can't work?

Afterward, spend the insurance money carefully. Your siblings should get jobs as early as possible, 11-12 or so, and jobs that allow them to develop skills. Ask your relatives and friends, some should have a workshop or a garage where the kids could be useful. In time, they'll develop craftsman skills.

...I actually don't know anybody who works in a workshop or garage.

In any case, you do get that some people don't have a life that's as easy as yours, right? You are aware that a lot of people don't get a nice, cushy start... they get abusive homes, poor nutrition, shitty education, no money for college, no hope, no future.

You did:

In order to compare identical products built with regulation in place and without regulation in place, we need two countries and two economies.
The latter might not even be a tax economy.


No, you really don't ened two countries and two economies, not at all. You just need one group making products that are regulated, and one group that... well, not so much.

Hey, that happens in every country, and every economy.


If you genuinely believe that regulation to improve the quality of the products will result in them having LOWER prices, you don't need an economics course - you need a doctor.


I didn't say I need an economics course - I said you might.

And allowing that all products are equally regulated, and thet the crappy alternatives are factored out, if you can't see how economic forces would reduce costs in the market - you really DO need that course.


The regulations that are in place there are 1) optional (for instance the military doesn't follow them, the private boats don't either), 2) come from within the industry itself.

A more significant point, though, is that this regulation and doesn't involve or need any governments to work.

Which is something of a strawman... because EXTERNAL isn't defined as 'the government did it'.

That would mean a minimum wage of $1.50/hr or so for most of the US and EU.

Technically, in US, you can acquire shelter, clothing, food and healthcare, adequate by world standards, for free. Still solid abandoned buildings to squat in, discarded clothing that isn't even halfway worn out, food with a couple days past its expiration date, and even ER healthcare. In many countries, people would dream of living like that.


You squat in an abandoned building, wear discarded rags, and live on day-old bread and still manage to spend this much time online? How do you do it?

Or is it more likely that you simply pulled this out of your ass, have no idea what poverty is like, and wouldn't last a month if you had to try?

Only as long as there are free children to take in poorer nations.

Take the third world out of the picture and see France try to steal and traffic humans out of Britain.

This statement is too vile for words.

Give them drugs that suppress mental capabilities.

The mere fact that anyone would even make a joke about this, much less consider it seriously is precisely why there needs to be some level of regulation.

Even in *anarcho-capitalism* (an extreme form of libertarianism) government still can exist, just as a public company jointly owned by the people.

Communism.

You have good comprehension. Yes. An adult can go for 2 weeks without food with no permanent damage, a child for a week.

Though practically they'll still have supper, it will just consist of rice, fried potatoes, bread, or other low-cost, non-delicious food that costs a dollar for a day's supper for the whole family, and is always stored somewhere in the house.
Check Walmart prices if you don't believe me. With just a single day of minimum-wage work, you can buy enough food for 3 people for a month.

Feel free to try that, then.

You don't have to. If your parents are dead, you should collect their life insurance, if they aren't yet, request euthanasia. That's what life insurance is for, so that you don't have to drop out of school.

More heartlessness. I expect, then, that you'll request euthanasia when you're a senior citizen, or at least that you'll not object to your children doing so on your behalf.

So now you're missing $80. Suddenly yes, you aren't eating at all.
Suddenly, no, you are eating. If you can't spare a buck a day for some low-cost crops that are quite enough to meet the 1500-2000 kcal requirement, it means you're either earning less than $1 an hour and so don't live in US (legally at least), or you're wasting your money on something you shouldn't.

Your parents were too poor to afford life insurance.
How did they even afford the ticket to US?

Oh yes, easy for you to say. What if your parents are relatively fine, but they're just sick enough that they can't work?
I can't give you a rulebook for every possible situation.

...I actually don't know anybody who works in a workshop or garage.
...Get to know someone then?

In any case, you do get that some people don't have a life that's as easy as yours, right? You are aware that a lot of people don't get a nice, cushy start... they get abusive homes, poor nutrition, shitty education, no money for college, no hope, no future.
Yes, it happens. Some people even get their bone and flesh chemically softened, half their brain sucked out, the body dismembered inside the womb and poured out as a bloody meat soup.





No, you really don't ened two countries and two economies, not at all. You just need one group making products that are regulated, and one group that... well, not so much.
Hey, that happens in every country, and every economy.
Great, where do I go to buy some unregulated goods? I'd like some unregulated full autos please.

And allowing that all products are equally regulated, and thet the crappy alternatives are factored out, if you can't see how economic forces would reduce costs in the market - you really DO need that course.
A quality product might cost a tiny bit less than it costs now - but it will still cost more than a crappy alternative.

Seeing as most people buy crappy car-like tin cans, if these are outlawed, they won't be able to afford any car, crappy or not, at all.





You squat in an abandoned building, wear discarded rags, and live on day-old bread and still manage to spend this much time online? How do you do it?
No, I live in a fairly solid house, wear regular clothes. Although as for eating day-old bread, caught me there, usually I do, two days old too. Can't afford shopping every day, time-wise.

But the fact that I don't do all of it doesn't mean a human can't live that way. Humans live in even worse conditions in the developing countries.

The mere fact that anyone would even make a joke about this, much less consider it seriously is precisely why there needs to be some level of regulation. Just in case, it was a joke.
And BTW, if taking it seriously, regulation will not stop you from doing that. It's a matter of criminal law, not commercial regulations.

Communism. No.
Just because capitalism can have good sides to it, making it harder to demonize, doesn't make it less of capitalism.

Feel free to try that, then.
I can't say I exactly had daily feasts when I was a student.

More heartlessness. I expect, then, that you'll request euthanasia when you're a senior citizen, or at least that you'll not object to your children doing so on your behalf.
I don't plan on shitting the bed. If the time comes that I have to go, it would probably be losing control due to old age and spectacularly smashing sideways into a tree with a fireball finishing the job. If nothing else, saves the disgrace of rotting in a casket like a pile of refuse.

A quality product might cost a tiny bit less than it costs now - but it will still cost more than a crappy alternative.


...which wouldn't exist...

...which wouldn't exist...
And that's exactly why regulation is undesirable. Because people need cheap crappy alternatives.

Sure, we could mandate all audio amplifiers to provide no more than 0.1% THD at 10% power, use toroidal power transformers only, and work in Class A (burning a kilowatt on standby) to make sure they don't sound like your grandpa struggling on the toilet. That would eliminate the crappy alternatives. It would also make me a little bit happier.

But, due to that, people who can't afford proper amps and speakers, but are an inch short of clinically deaf anyway and can't tell CDDA from mp3, so would normally settle for crappy alternatives, will be deprived of any music at all.

And that's exactly why regulation is undesirable. Because people need cheap crappy alternatives.


No they don't.

No they don't.
Most people do. Because they aren't able and most likely won't ever be able to afford properly built products.


Let me ask a question to determine whether you're among them. Assuming you live in US, how high, in %, an income tax do you pay?

I don't plan on shitting the bed. If the time comes that I have to go, it would probably be losing control due to old age and spectacularly smashing sideways into a tree with a fireball finishing the job. If nothing else, saves the disgrace of rotting in a casket like a pile of refuse.

Why wait?

Why wait?
'cause I want to see more spectacular crashes yet.

I would really rather try to stay here for longer, if it takes something like a full body transplantation, go for it. But if the opportunity doesn't present itself, at least I won't let age to be the thing to kill me.

'cause I want to see more spectacular crashes yet.

I would really rather try to stay here for longer, if it takes something like a full body transplantation, go for it. But if the opportunity doesn't present itself, at least I won't let age to be the thing to kill me.

Good to know that you'll end it all before you pass from a mere annoyance to an actual burden.

So why not just start a corporation, which is based around what products the people want to buy, rather than what resource is available nearby?Because corporations are immoral. One could start a worker-owned cooperative based upon what products the people want to buy, of course. Such a cooperative might even use molybdenum.

Only if it's a bad investment, and bad and good are relative to the cost. When a commodity is oversold, the time comes to buy. Those who do it, win.Unless the commodity no longer has any value. Then one would not wish to buy it.

You disprove your argument yourself. If you want a post-secondary education, you'll get it despite the cost,Um...no. Cost is probably

and pay back the loans with your new salary that's incomparable with those for unskilled labor.This assumes that one can reconcile the immorality of usury with obtaining an education, that one can get a high-paying job (given that many people with degrees don't), or that a high-paying job is actually worth doing (not likely).

Obviously you're not going to college just to work as a janitor ever after.Perhaps not, but you might go to college to be a social worker, which aren't paid much better.

And seeing how many people try to do it for free in NS, you can't say designing ships is a dull job. I definitely can't. It's not easy, but you get a feel for what you're doing. The only better engineering jobs I can think of are designing sports cars and civic superprojects, but these are way too hard to get.It's not inherently dull (neither is garbage collection), but there's nothing about engineering that appeals to me.


Well, and what do you want? To get a massive boost in your income for nothing? Yes. Post-secondary education should absolutely be free of cost (to the person getting the education.)

Yes. But we need more. Which means some have to get jobs they don't enjoy, and do what has to be done. Incorrect. If we need more, then the people who think they need those things can do it. There shouldn't be a permanent underclass of people doing the shit jobs.

You want 5 or 6 degrees? Sorry, when we invent a way to extend the life infinitely (and I really hope we do, I'll still be too young to leave even if I turn a century), you just may get them.Not really. If a person gets one or two degrees in four years (of full-time schooling), they could easily get 5 or 6 in 12 years.

But until then, you have to diversify your education. Get the main job degree, a self-learned backup craft, another skill for your free time, and then extend the skills you see you have a knack for.When would anybody doing this have time to sleep? Or work?

Most people do. Because they aren't able and most likely won't ever be able to afford properly built products.


...because the market is artificially split into shitty products and good products - with an an-natural division between the two, because the prices if good products are inflated by a 'premium value'.

Why doesn't the US create a reservation for libertarians?

An area of land could be put aside where libertarians could live separated from society as individualists. They could enter voluntarily and would be exempt from all taxes and free from laws, but in turn they would have to leave all the products of society behind when they entered (so no guns unless they mined the metal for it and the tools to make it, designed it and built it entirely by themselves etc.).

Would they survive or just end up killing each other?

Libertarians (like ke) enjoy many laws. We like laws that enforce contracts, punish violent crimes and crimes against property. Many of us even like regulations that correct problems not correctable by the free market. We are not against free markets so why should we be denied access to them? I am confused.

Libertarians (like ke) enjoy many laws. We like laws that enforce contracts, punish violent crimes and crimes against property. Many of us even like regulations that correct problems not correctable by the free market. We are not against free markets so why should we be denied access to them? I am confused.

Because I have yet to meet a Libertarian who truly cared about anyone but themselves. That's not freedom; that's not liberty. That's selfishness.

Libertarians (like ke) enjoy many laws. We like laws that enforce contracts, punish violent crimes and crimes against property. Many of us even like regulations that correct problems not correctable by the free market. We are not against free markets so why should we be denied access to them? I am confused.

Actual free markets are bad for America. Why do you hate America?

Why doesn't the US create a reservation for libertarians?

An area of land could be put aside where libertarians could live separated from society as individualists. They could enter voluntarily and would be exempt from all taxes and free from laws, but in turn they would have to leave all the products of society behind when they entered (so no guns unless they mined the metal for it and the tools to make it, designed it and built it entirely by themselves etc.).

Would they survive or just end up killing each other?

I used to consider myself a libertarian. When I joined the Libertarian party and started meeting my compatriots, I realised just how delusional they truly were. An example of their most recent case of insanity is the accusal of Obama of wanting to create a "Genocide" of some form, against who they would never clarify. They also claimed that Obama was seeking global domination and was part of some conspiratorial plot known as the "New World Order" run by the Council on Foreign Relations. These weren't lowly members either, but rather leaders of the Florida branch of the party. Most of the rest from my understanding feel the same. *sigh*

I used to consider myself a libertarian. When I joined the Libertarian party and started meeting my compatriots, I realised just how delusional they truly were. An example of their most recent case of insanity is the accusal of Obama of wanting to create a "Genocide" of some form, against who they would never clarify. They also claimed that Obama was seeking global domination and was part of some conspiratorial plot known as the "New World Order" run by the Council on Foreign Relations. These weren't lowly members either, but rather leaders of the Florida branch of the party. Most of the rest from my understanding feel the same. *sigh*You used to be a communist before that, too. You're an ideology jumper! :p

As a Libertarian I readily concede that the 'Libertarian Party' is chock full of secessionists, white supremacists, survivalists and anti-IRS militia-men.

I just think that everyone in the US should read, understand and apply what is in the Constitution and that we should hold our elected representatives to their oath to uphold and defend the constitution.

Having said that, look at the socialist nutjobs in the Democratic party and religious whack-hoses in the Republican party.

AND having said that, as a pure Libertarian, I do not belong to or support any party.

I just think that everyone in the US should read, understand and apply what is in the Constitution and that we should hold our elected representatives to their oath to uphold and defend the constitution.


...which has what to do with being a libertarian?

...which has what to do with being a libertarian?

He's maybe one of those uber-strict interpretationists who are against the Amendments -- all of them. (except the 2nd).

So, the government is going to piss off one group of people in order to allow another group to live in its own utopia? This won't end well...

This sounds familiar. I think something like this happened in the middle east.

He's maybe one of those uber-strict interpretationists who are against the Amendments -- all of them. (except the 2nd).

Which triggers a thought:

Why does it always seem that the people who shout loudest about anyone coming close to the second amendment... are the same people that make excuses for Bush suspending other constitutional rights?

*ponders*

Because I have yet to meet a Libertarian who truly cared about anyone but themselves. That's not freedom; that's not liberty. That's selfishness.

I've yet to meet a human being who truly cared about anyone but themselves and who would refrain from killing and/or eating me if their survival depended on it.

But I could just be making a cynical generalization, maybe.