patrick.net

Reality says

Cure for cancer?

Pharma has an institutional bias against cures.
Treatment, long term treatment, that's the ticket for fire hose cash flows.

Reality says

The personal computer, smart phone, or tablet that you are typing from, for example. It's the profit motives at Apple, Intel, Microsoft and etc. that made the rapid of advancement of personal computer possible. The government bureaucrats in every country worked hard on mainframes at the time and dismissed personal computer as something that nobody would want or would be able to afford

I think you could argue that the more comfortable the comforted get, the LESS innovation there is. Why risk anything when you have excess?

Where is the motive when you already have millions or billions?

Keeping up with your fellow billionaires might be all they have? Vanity, not necessity.

CL says

I think you could argue that the more comfortable the comforted get, the LESS innovation there is. Why risk anything when you have excess?

You are describing the mentality of a government bureaucrat. Whereas in the competitive private sector, your business designing, making and selling an iPad is constantly at risk of customers switching their loyalty to some Droids . . . it's called capital obsolescence. That's why some of the richest families like the Rockerfellers and Kennedy's turned to government so their offsprings would become government bureaucrats free from the market competitive pressure.

Where is the motive when you already have millions or billions?

Keeping up with your fellow billionaires might be all they have? Vanity, not necessity.

So how did iPod, iPhone and iPad come about? Steve Jobs was worth several hundred million dollars if not billions before any of them came along. Why didn't he quit working in 1980 or so when he made his first several millions? Because life is not about keeping up with fellow billionaires in the entreprenuerial world, but about keeping customers and attracting more customers.

What you described is exactly the sort of bureaucratic mentality that kills innovation whenever the government takes over R&D in a country.

Reality says

CL says

What innovation did that inequality provide for us? Did they cure cancer or anything?

Or was that just idle capital?

The personal computer, smart phone, or tablet that you are typing from, for example. It's the profit motives at Apple, Intel, Microsoft and etc. that
made the rapid of advancement of personal computer possible.

Our unprecedented income inequality (and it's political effects) is the issue.
Does it advance or retard profit driven innovation?

Robert Sproul says

Our unprecedented income inequality (and it's political effects) is the issue.

Does it advance or retard profit driven innovation?

I'm actually not convinced that our current income inequality is unprecedented, either in world history or in American history. The current income inequality in countries like North Korea, China and Saudi Arabia is far worse than that of the US. In an economy where a significant portion of the population died of starvation whereas the leaders and their family never exposed to hunger, that's is far worse income inequality than what we have today. Counting monetary income without counting power is meaningless, as people earn money in order to get power of moving real physical resources and human labor.

The problem we have is actually political power that has broken free from the constraints imposed by an honest money system, just like in North Korea, China and all the other despotic countries in world history. That makes some participants in the economy unaccountable to their fellow human beings. Having living demi-gods walking around is never a good thing for a society.

Robert Sproul says

Does it advance or retard profit driven innovation?

What motivates them what's got already? Another golden toilet?

Reality says

Steve Jobs was worth several hundred million dollars if not billions before any of them came along. Why didn't he quit working in 1980 or so when he made his first several millions?

Indeed. What did motivate him? Not wealth, since he already had enough.

So, what motivates the non-Jobs folks? Not everyone in that class is Jobs-like, are they? Especially if they've inherited their vast sums.

If the cream rises, let them make it so after we've taken away their privilege.

I have often suspected this from seeing the economic results of lowering tax rates on the wealthy from the 90% rates of the 1960s. Paradoxically, it could be that the lower tax rates on the rich (ie allowing them to become too rich, too rapidly) have actually suppressed inovation and business formation... and led to less jobs. Why start a factory when they can manipulate and play the markets and only pay a capital gains tax rate of 15%?

CL says

Indeed. What did motivate him? Not wealth, since he already had enough.

Jobs had his ideas and ego. More importantly, unless you think we should make men like Jobs into Kings (or more precisely modern dictators), Jobs had to convince other people to invest in his ideas. That takes profitability. Honest money is a system of accounting, making everyone accountable for his action in the economy . . . instead of the silly nonsense that the typical Socialist Commonwealth engage in like the Soviet Union did in the 1920's, Red China did in the 1960's. If the North Koreans were running under an honest money system instead of under leadership charisma and propaganda, they'd be allocating resources to food production instead of to national defense against imaginary enemies (an imaginary war that Krugman insists would be good for the economy).

So, what motivates the non-Jobs folks? Not everyone in that class is Jobs-like, are they? Especially if they've inherited their vast sums.

A free market can take resources away from wasteful heirs much faster than political systems. In fact, political systems tend to entrench the rich . . . as Rockerfeller Jr., Kennedy Jr., Bush Jr., Gore Jr. all have a natural born advantage over others that nobody can take away from them: the family name!

If the cream rises, let them make it so after we've taken away their privilege.

Why don't you tell that to the Rockerfeller Jrs, Kennedy Jrs, Bush Jrs and Gore Jrs.

Zakrajshek says

have often suspected this from seeing the economic results of lowering tax rates on the wealthy from the 90% rates of the 1960s. Paradoxically, it could be that the lower tax rates on the rich (ie allowing them to become too rich, too rapidly) have actually suppressed inovation and business formation... and led to less jobs. Why start a factory when they can manipulate and play the markets and only pay a capital gains tax rate of 15%?

The premise that the 1960's real tax rate was 90% is preposterous. Even when those brackets existed, almost nobody was dumb enough to pay them. Why would you compensate someone $1M when you know $900k will never reach him?

A second missing part of your analysis is that: the tax money has to go somewhere. The political fighting over the tax money and regulatory advantages has taken precedence over innovation in many sectors of the economy, such as medicine and banking, precisely the areas where government regulations have made them extremely costly to the consumers and taxpayers (forced consumers of government "services")

Reality says

Having living demi-gods walking around is never a good thing for a society.

Indeed, that breakdown in the rule of law is a turning point. There is little to resist further inequity.
Rob a convenience store and get 12 plus 5, blatantly steal billions (shout out to John Corzine) and lay low for a spell while you get some laws changed to your advantage.
I like to analogize it to a board game, say Monopoly, where one player gets to change a small rule that is inconveniencing him, say every 3rd round. This cumulative advantage assures his victory and also assures that the other players are not going to enjoy losing.
In fact they are going to hate his fucking guts.

Reality says

Why would you compensate someone $1M when you know $900k will never reach him?

Certainly you know how marginal taxes work, so why would you do such rotten math?

Reality says

big business would not have any power over you when you the consumer choose to do business with the smaller competitors . . . until the government regulates the smaller competitors out of business. That's exactly what government regulations and taxes do: the smaller competitors feel more of the regulatory and tax burdens because they can not afford to buy the government.

I remember when mom and pop stores ruled. It totally sucked. Higher, inconsistent pricing. A big fight any time you tried to return something. They got what they deserved. Mom and pop establishments still live in the restaurant business and it's hard to find a mom and pop where there's consistent food quality and service. There SHOULD be a law against morons owning their own business.

CL says

Reality says

Why would you compensate someone $1M when you know $900k will never reach him?

Certainly you know how marginal taxes work, so why would you do such rotten math?

In any case, wouldn't the higher marginal rate give the wealthy an incentive to use that capital to innovate, start new businesses, etc? They would be less comfortable sitting on their cash?

Robert Sproul says

Rob a convenience store and get 12 plus 5, blatantly steal billions (shout out to John Corzine) and lay low for a spell while you get some laws changed to your advantage.

Society puts a high value on life.

A crooked banker may destroy many a life but they won't take a life. Anyone who is stupid, desperate or impatient enough to use violence to get what they want needs to be taken off the streets right quick. When a banker gets caught you're usually seeing the worst thing they did. When a thief gets caught robbing a convenience store it's just the tip of the iceberg of a life of crime and violence. Just ask any cop or lawyer who has to deal with that sort on a regular basis. Ask anyone who's worked in and around prisons. They will tell you, "THANK GOD for prisons!!!"

Reality says

Jobs had his ideas and ego. More importantly, unless you think we should make men like Jobs into Kings

Anyone who's a boss knows the ego boost of having people kissing your ass can be very addictive. If Jobs retired he'd only have the maid and the pool boy to kiss his ass and tell him how wonderful he is. Although, he could have become a philanthopist like Bill Gates so the mass ass kissing would continue.

.ELC says

Anyone who is stupid, desperate or impatient enough to use violence to get what they want needs to be taken off the streets right quick

Maybe they should just assemble a giant CDO, peel off a few rank tranches to some German pension funds and head off to South Hampton instead.

Bigsby says

You can't just do what the fuck you like without consideration of the well being of your fellow man.

I do whatever I want and I get along fine. It's just that it so happens that what I want fits in with the norms of society. If it doesn't, that individual has to take an honest look at themself. They are most likely mentally defective or emotionally immature. Children need boundries as they learn to fit into society but healthy adults should not. If they do they're not normal. They need to be locked up, worked hard, educated, treated as children and finally released when they're properly taught to live in a society. If they refuse they need to be worked hard behind bars until they learn.

The main problem is anyone can breed. People want to have children but they don't want to, or are incapable of acting like parents. These people need to be sterilized after their first mistake.

That will be my platform! :)

Reality says

The high taxation on the more productive people and forcible transfer of resources to the less productive people makes fraud and deception against the latter all the more profitable.

The wealthy people I've known are far more productive than the poor and even middle class I've known. That's at least been my personal experience, so it's hard to for me buy into this demonizing of the rich. The ultra rich are the ones that I've found to either be (hard working) sicko sociopaths or lazy retards living off their family's money.

Reality says

"Life" in the context of Declaration of Independence means being alive, not arbitrarily being cut short by government officials. Quality of life comes in "Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness." I'm not surprised the tax funded public school system has failed to teach you what the word "life" means in the Declaration of Independence.

You just took a few choice phrases and made of it whatever you want, pretty much how everyone uses supposed important pieces of writing to argue whatever they want to argue. Plenty of people have cleaved to what that declaration says whilst doing the exact opposite. They are just words written very many years ago at an entirely different time that you want to use to bolster your own arguments. Yes 'liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' presumably whilst keeping slaves or in the present day giving little or no concern to others around you. Pat phrases are easy, running a functioning society takes a little more effort.

Reality says

Did you forget that the American Revolution was triggered by a 3% Stamp Tax and tariff on tea? Most responsibility for others comes from voluntary contracts. Being forced to serve others at gun point is called slavery . . . more importantly, you are kidding yourself if you think the real purpose of taxation is to serve other needy individuals instead of fattening the bureaucrats and cronies.

Eh? 'Forced to serve others at gun point' is how you live your day-to-day life, is it? Ha-ha. You want to remove big government and put all power in the hands of unfettered capitalism. Who the fuck do you think you'll be serving then?
Reality says

No on both. Big businesses don't meddle in government, they OWN the government and they ARE the government, since time immemorial. "Government" is the biggest business and most monopolistic business there ever is. Who do you think are the type of people running governments? The same group of people that run big businesses.

They don't own government but they have far too much influence in your country. What's your solution? Ah, yes, remove big government and let these corporations have free rein rather than wanting to change the way that the government is run so that business has less influence.

Reality says

Romans once believed in "Roman exceptionalism." Guess where that got them? Being the most powerful in the world is part of the problem. Power breeds corruption.

So what? Every country is exceptional in some way or another. What exactly is your point? And I'm not saying the US is going to exist forever. What country has? And it's Americans who always blather on about it being the greatest country in the world. That is just arrogance but it doesn't mean that the US doesn't have some exceptional qualities.

Reality says

That's a preposterous claim. Nobody suggests SEC staffers should watch porn on their jobs and prosecute the little guys while letting the big fraudsters go free (like they already do), so they can get high paying jobs at the Wall Street firms later.

What? So it's a preposterous claim that the government entirely missed the ball on that occasion but has been effective in other areas? If you say so. I'm talking about strengthening and enforcing the role of the government in such areas. You are talking about removing it entirely. Let me tell you which direction will help big business do what the hell it wants. I'll give you a clue, it isn't yours.

Reality says

How? The big business would not have any power over you when you the consumer choose to do business with the smaller competitors . . . until the government regulates the smaller competitors out of business. That's exactly what government regulations and taxes do: the smaller competitors feel more of the regulatory and tax burdens because they can not afford to buy the government.

That is completely and utterly ridiculous. Smaller competitors will simply be consumed by larger and more powerful ones. Government has stepped in to try and regulate monopolistic practices. Why exactly do you think there is a need for them to do that?

Reality says

Your theory is very much against 300 years of western enlightenment intellectual thought, and falls right into the trap of the Divine Power of the Sovereign.

It's not a theory. Government can offer protection to the weaker members of society against unrestrained capitalism running rough shod over everything and everyone. Ever read Dickens? Just because your country chooses to give far too much power to business isn't proof of your argument, it's support of mine.

Reality says

Every stronger government has produced even worse result.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. There are countries in Europe that consistently rank higher than the US that have much stronger governments, that actually do look to protect their citizens against the excesses of the more powerful. Strong government doesn't have to mean a totalitarian one.

Reality says

Can't find your strawman, can you? Lobbyists are evil, unless they advocate for your cause. Political campaigns involve so much money because the government is becoming too powerful: making buying it worth the money! duh! Guess what, you and I and small to medium businesses can't afford to pay the price of entry. The stronger you make the government, the higher the price of entry, and the more exclusive the club of buyers become, and the worse you and I and every small to medium businesses are squeezed, so the big buyers of the government can get their money's worth!

Eh? Your country pumps billions into the lobbyist system, most of which is advocating for big business. What other Western democracy allows such a gratuitous peddling of influence? Remove the lobbyists. It's not that difficult. Have elections paid for by the state. Again, not difficult and you remove some of the greatest drivers of corruption in one go. Your system has been openly corrupted by money and power. You want to give even more power to those who have actively gone about buying influence in that system. How about lessening their influence in the first place?

ELC says

The wealthy people I've known are far more productive than the poor and even middle class I've known. That's at least been my personal experience, so it's hard to for me buy into this demonizing of the rich. The ultra rich are the ones that I've found to either be (hard working) sicko sociopaths or lazy retards living off their family's money.

Demonizing the rich? This is the bloody line that the rich are peddling. It isn't demonizing the rich to have them paying higher taxes than they were under Bush at a time of mounting deficits, particularly considering how much more enriched they have become in recent decades. Asking them to pay a little more, a little more that they can very easily afford, is just an obvious thing to do given the financial position of the US.

Robert Sproul says

Reality says

What the heck is "unfettered capitalism"? Do you mean each person having unfettered right to his/her own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? What exactly is wrong with that?

People commonly confuse "unfettered capitalism" with the current system of crony, Cartel Capitalizm. Which, through it's partner the government, uses "regulation" to strengthen it's effective monopolies.

That isn't what I was saying. I was talking about big business unfettered by the constraints of any government regulation. That appears to be what Reality wants, and it is something that would be even worse than the current system.

CL says

Reality says

Why would you compensate someone $1M when you know $900k will never reach him?

Certainly you know how marginal taxes work, so why would you do such rotten math?

I was talking about the incremental compensation on the top, which would have been subject to top bracket. In real life, people figure out alternative ways to reward executives when the tax is that high. BTW, do you even know what the actual threshold was for the 90% tax rate? It was numerically in the 300k range, so bulk of even the first mil would be subject to 90% tax. The dollar was simply worth a lot more back then. $300k back then was probably comparable to $5-8mil today.

ELC says

I remember when mom and pop stores ruled. It totally sucked. Higher, inconsistent pricing. A big fight any time you tried to return something. They got what they deserved. Mom and pop establishments still live in the restaurant business and it's hard to find a mom and pop where there's consistent food quality and service. There SHOULD be a law against morons owning their own business.

Then we'd never have new types of restaurants trying out new cuisines. Most new restaurants fail, but it's the few surviving ones that transform what we consider a good dinner.

CL says

CL says

Reality says

Why would you compensate someone $1M when you know $900k will never reach him?

Certainly you know how marginal taxes work, so why would you do such rotten math?

In any case, wouldn't the higher marginal rate give the wealthy an incentive to use that capital to innovate, start new businesses, etc? They would be less comfortable sitting on their cash?

Where is this moronic idea about sitting on cash coming from? The rich invest a far higher percentage of their net worth, usually more than 100% i.e. on leverage.

Higher marginal tax rate simply transfers resources from projects that people desire through their spending pattern to projects that politicians want for political patronage.

ELC says

The wealthy people I've known are far more productive than the poor and even middle class I've known. That's at least been my personal experience, so it's hard to for me buy into this demonizing of the rich. The ultra rich are the ones that I've found to either be (hard working) sicko sociopaths or lazy retards living off their family's money.

Yet, every soak-the-rich tax proposal always end up soaking the mere wealthy then the middle clas, and leave the ultra rich out because the ultra rich can afford to buy tax lawyers, accountants and lawmakers themselves.

Bigsby says

You just took a few choice phrases and made of it whatever you want, pretty much how everyone uses supposed important pieces of writing to argue whatever they want to argue. Plenty of people have cleaved to what that declaration says whilst doing the exact opposite. They are just words written very many years ago at an entirely different time that you want to use to bolster your own arguments. Yes 'liberty and the pursuit of happiness,' presumably whilst keeping slaves or in the present day giving little or no concern to others around you. Pat phrases are easy, running a functioning society takes a little more effort.

It's funny someone who advocates higher taxation fails to recognize that taxation is slavery!

It's even funnier when those advocates fail to realize that free education, free medicine, free housing, even free clothing and free food were all available on the slave plantation for the slaves! at the discretion of the slave owners of course!

Bigsby says

Eh? 'Forced to serve others at gun point' is how you live your day-to-day life, is it? Ha-ha. You want to remove big government and put all power in the hands of unfettered capitalism. Who the fuck do you think you'll be serving then?

When a person is forced to pay tax amounting 1/2 of his/her entire income, half of his/her work days is indeed effectively in slavery! In fact, the real slaves of ancient times had an effective tax rate of only about 10-20%.

Go find someone or a goat to fuck. Leave fucking out of this discussion. As to who I would serve in a non-coercive society, my clients of course. Those are the people I voluntarily serve even today . . . because they pay me. That may be a foreign concept to you.

Bigsby says

They don't own government but they have far too much influence in your country. What's your solution? Ah, yes, remove big government and let these corporations have free rein rather than wanting to change the way that the government is run so that business has less influence.

How exactly would the big banks force you to bail them out if the government weren't there to do the bailout via taxation? The coercive power of big business is exercised through the government that you love so much.

Bigsby says

So what? Every country is exceptional in some way or another. What exactly is your point? And I'm not saying the US is going to exist forever. What country has? And it's Americans who always blather on about it being the greatest country in the world. That is just arrogance but it doesn't mean that the US doesn't have some exceptional qualities.

You obviously don't understand what "American Exceptionalism" is. Glad you are retracting from your earlier statement expressing the sentiment of American Exceptionalism

Bigsby says

What? So it's a preposterous claim that the government entirely missed the ball on that occasion but has been effective in other areas? If you say so. I'm talking about strengthening and enforcing the role of the government in such areas. You are talking about removing it entirely. Let me tell you which direction will help big business do what the hell it wants. I'll give you a clue, it isn't yours.

You don't understand the human nature of government bureaucrats. Government can not function without human bureaucrats, who are not as stupid and utterly selfless as you think they can be. They all need to eat, wear clothes, have a roof over their heads, have fucking partners (your favorite subject), and the sending the result of fucking to colleges, as well as taking care the people whose fucking begot the bureaucrats to begin with. All of those desires and pursuits cost money!

Yet, you are postulating bureaucrats wielding feudal territorial privileges would not be tempted by money!

Bigsby says

That is completely and utterly ridiculous. Smaller competitors will simply be consumed by larger and more powerful ones. Government has stepped in to try and regulate monopolistic practices. Why exactly do you think there is a need for them to do that?

Government anti-trust litigations have been enormous failures and waste of time. Government went after IBM just as when the company became less relevent; likewise, government went after MSFT when that company started to fall behind competitors.

Small companies advantage is in flexibility and innovation. Big companies hire lawmakers to limit what small companies can do through regulations and increase the overhead cost of small companies by increasing compliance cost.

Bigsby says

It's not a theory. Government can offer protection to the weaker members of society against unrestrained capitalism running rough shod over everything and everyone. Ever read Dickens? Just because your country chooses to give far too much power to business isn't proof of your argument, it's support of mine.

Are you serious? Dickens? Do you not realize he was writing novels? Do you not realize Dickens was the prototype racist limousine liberal that essentially advocated sending the urban poor back to the country-side to live a much harder life scratching a living out of the soil? out of sight out of mind ostrich philosophy typifies Dickensian elitist thinking.

"Unrestrained capitalism running rough shod"? Can you give a real life example of that? Rough shods are by definition run by people plugged into the government coercive machine.

Bigsby says

Reality says

Every stronger government has produced even worse result.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. There are countries in Europe that consistently rank higher than the US that have much stronger governments, that actually do look to protect their citizens against the excesses of the more powerful. Strong government doesn't have to mean a totalitarian one.

Given an example please, just one. And tell us why "the fuck" (as your favorite phrase) did you not migrate to that country instead coming to the US.

Bigsby says

Eh? Your country pumps billions into the lobbyist system, most of which is advocating for big business. What other Western democracy allows such a gratuitous peddling of influence? Remove the lobbyists. It's not that difficult. Have elections paid for by the state. Again, not difficult and you remove some of the greatest drivers of corruption in one go. Your system has been openly corrupted by money and power. You want to give even more power to those who have actively gone about buying influence in that system. How about lessening their influence in the first place?

"It's not that difficult"? What planet are living on? Do you also believe in "if I were the king"? i.e. Divine Right of the Sovereign? You obviously don't understand the American political process and basic rights, such as freedom of expression. You are also dreaming if you think exclusive state funding of election would bring good results in the long run. The buying of politicians would just take place after election! So long as the government officials are wielding extraordinary power, that political power gets arbitraged. Let's hope you understand what "arbitrage" means.

Bigsby says

That isn't what I was saying. I was talking about big business unfettered by the constraints of any government regulation. That appears to be what Reality wants, and it is something that would be even worse than the current system.

That's total bull shit. What have you been "fucking"? Your own brain? I want a system where everyone is coerced as little as possible. I want "unfettered" liberty and freedom.

regarding income inequality, has the gap REALLY widen among whites? maybe overall gap is widen due to minorities taking a big hit during this recession:

http://newsone.com/1416645/wealth-gap-between-blacks-whites-widens/

Reality says

That's total bull shit. What have you been "fucking"? Your own brain? I want a system where everyone is coerced as little as possible. I want "unfettered" liberty and freedom.

Unfettered liberty and freedom? Ah yes, and what exactly does that constitute in a functioning society? All you've said is that you want government out of the way and big business to be free to do as it wishes. That doesn't constitue unfettered liberty and freedom, does it? All that will lead to is you being royally exploited by giant corporations. What have you been "fucking"? Fox news?

Reality says

"It's not that difficult"? What planet are living on? Do you also believe in "if I were the king"? i.e. Divine Right of the Sovereign? You obviously don't understand the American political process and basic rights, such as freedom of expression. You are also dreaming if you think exclusive state funding of election would bring good results in the long run. The buying of politicians would just take place after election! So long as the government officials are wielding extraordinary power, that political power gets arbitraged. Let's hope you understand what "arbitrage" means.

It would bring better results than your current political system. That is the point. And no, it isn't that difficult to remove lobbyists from the political process. It isn't an issue of freedom of speech, it's an issue of overtly buying political favour. If politicians could only collect income from their job and no other sources, then that would obviously reduce corruption and influence peddling. You are getting the politicians you deserve if you automatically assume that there is no way of reducing corruption once in public office. Your country has created a system where they've made it easy for politicians to be corrupted. It doesn't have to be that way. I hope you can understand that.

Reality says

Bigsby says

Reality says

Every stronger government has produced even worse result.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. There are countries in Europe that consistently rank higher than the US that have much stronger governments, that actually do look to protect their citizens against the excesses of the more powerful. Strong government doesn't have to mean a totalitarian one.

Given an example please, just one. And tell us why "the fuck" (as your favorite phrase) did you not migrate to that country instead coming to the US.

I don't live in the US, so you'll have to try again. And er, every Scandinavian country, for example, consistently ranks higher than the US in multiple areas and every single one of those countries has a government that you no doubt would consider verging on the communist (but that quite clearly aren't). So yes, there you go, that's more than one example.

Reality says

Are you serious? Dickens? Do you not realize he was writing novels? Do you not realize Dickens was the prototype racist limousine liberal that essentially advocated sending the urban poor back to the country-side to live a much harder life scratching a living out of the soil? out of sight out of mind ostrich philosophy typifies Dickensian elitist thinking.

"Unrestrained capitalism running rough shod"? Can you give a real life example of that? Rough shods are by definition run by people plugged into the government coercive machine.

Are you joking? What do you think he was writing novels about?
And what do you mean give real life examples? Running roughshod means acting with clear disregard... I'm not sure what you think it means. You live in the US. Why exactly do you think some of your 'greatest' businessmen were referred to as robber barons not that long ago? Much of their excesses were curtailed by legislation, the type of legislation that you seem to want to have removed.