patrick.net
An Antidote to Corporate Media
1,250,322 comments by 14,912 users - HeadSet, Hf online now
The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%
invite response
2013 Jan 25, 2:50am 128,632 views 354 comments
« First « Previous Comments 275 - 314 of 354 Next » Last » Search these comments
tatupu70
2013 Feb 13, 7:05am
Increasing the price of a product leads to the reduction of jobs utilizing
that product and less money people using that product would have to create other
jobs. The enforcement bureaucrats that are ignored in MagicThinking(R) but exist
and cost a lot in real life would further reduce real productive domestic jobs
via taxation.
Maybe, if you're looking at a global economy. But not if you're looking only at the US.
We are in a fiat money system. The fact that the excess money from printing
is shipped overseas causing inflation elsewhere is better than letting the money
stay in this country and cause inflation here.
You've got the chicken and the egg reversed. We have to print money because of the trade deficit. A little inflation is far superior to a lot of unemployment anyway.
I am looking the local economy. Do you think the Japanese live a better life
than we do?
Good question. By many objective standards, they do. But it's hard to strip away all the other factors and see what is only caused by tariffs.
Making the desired products and services less available and more expensive means
driving down standards of living. Jobs are not the goal, enjoying goods and
services is the real goal for each individual.
But you can't enjoy goods and services without having a job. Unless you want to completely change the way things are run... I think society is much better off with jobs as opposed to slightly cheaper goods and services.
Increasing the price of a product leads to the reduction of jobs utilizing
that product and less money people using that product would have to create other
jobs. The enforcement bureaucrats that are ignored in MagicThinking(R) but exist
and cost a lot in real life would further reduce real productive domestic jobs
via taxation.Maybe, if you're looking at a global economy. But not if you're looking only at the US.
How? Did you even read what I wrote? You are making the mistake of counting make-belief jobs that pauperize fellow Americans as jobs. A real job exists only if it can deliver something that is less expensive than alternatives therefore the output of which is voluntarily chosen by the consumers seeking better living standards.
You've got the chicken and the egg reversed. We have to print money because of the trade deficit. A little inflation is far superior to a lot of unemployment anyway.
You are the one having chicken and egg reversed. The real driving force is government budget deficit. In order to avoid a run-away inflation here, extra money has to be shipped over seas in exchange for real goods shipped here.
Good question. By many objective standards, they do. But it's hard to strip away all the other factors and see what is only caused by tariffs.
No they do not. Most identical items cost a lot more money to their consumers than they cost here. There standards of living is negatively impacted by the lack of purchasing power.
But you can't enjoy goods and services without having a job.
That's simply not true. If you win the lottery or were simply given $1M, tell me why you can't enjoy goods and services? of course, if everyone is given that money, the purchasing power would plummet, there jobs is just another way of checking and balancing the relative priorities among different consumers.
Most government bureaucrats and welfare recipients don't have real productive jobs . . . yet they do enjoy the money given to them.
Unless you want to completely change the way things are run... I think society is much better off with jobs as opposed to slightly cheaper goods and services.
Only jobs created by consumer choice are sustainable, due to the division of labor creating additional value. Every other "job" is just another welfare recipient position (including government bureaucrats) that costs other people's standards of living. What do you "jobs" created by price protection really are? another form of welfare that ultimately cost the consumers more than the specific recipients receive.
tatupu70
2013 Feb 13, 8:27am
How? Did you even read what I wrote? You are making the mistake of counting make-belief jobs that pauperize fellow Americans as jobs. A real job exists only if it can deliver something that is less expensive than alternatives therefore the output of which is voluntarily chosen by the consumers seeking better living standards
The cost of the foreign product plus the tariff will be higher than the cost of the US product. Therefore, jobs will be created in the US.
You are the one having chicken and egg reversed. The real driving force is government budget deficit. In order to avoid a run-away inflation here, extra money has to be shipped over seas in exchange for real goods shipped here.
That is laughably incorrect. Look at the history of trade deficits vs. US government deficits. End of story.
No they do not. Most identical items cost a lot more money to their consumers than they cost here. There standards of living is negatively impacted by the lack of purchasing power.
Higher cost doesn't mean lower purchasing power. Do you have data showing that they have lower purchasing power?
That's simply not true. If you win the lottery or were simply given $1M, tell me why you can't enjoy goods and services? of course, if everyone is given that money, the purchasing power would plummet, there jobs is just another way of checking and balancing the relative priorities among different consumers.
That's your counter argument--winning the lottery? OK--you got me.
Only jobs created by consumer choice are sustainable, due to the division of labor creating additional value.
Of course--and with a tariff, the consumers will choose the products made in the US.
Every other "job" is just another welfare recipient position (including government bureaucrats) that costs other people's standards of living.
Give me a break. Your dogma is clouding your decision making...
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 13, 9:05am
It's a common fallacy. Frederick Bastiat addressed this issue more than a century ago: do you think the population would be better off if the candle makers managed to lobby through a law that requires the erection of a giant city cover to block out sun light, so there can be more candle making jobs?
Well, Manchester was created by British Government policy, not by free trade. AFTER centuries of protectionism, when Britain had no equal in the textile industry, it began to indulge in free trade, and even then only with certain European powers, and not in it's own colonies (see: North America in the 18th and India from the 1800s to 1940s).
It's no accident that Asian countries larger than a postage stamp that chose protectionism industrialized. South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, China - all examples of protectionism in action.
Meanwhile, the trade deficit grows alongside the national debt (both public and private), because a trade deficit adds to national debt as imports are not being paid for with exports. We get away with it for now because we hold the world's reserve currency. If we dealt in gold and silver like many libertarians want, our trade deficit would have been made unsustainable a long time ago.
EDIT: Oops, Tatupu already hit this point.
BTW, the US not only industrialized thanks to a high tariff, but because US Judges refused to enforce European - particularly British - patents and trademarks. God knows how many millions of books, machines, etc. were copied without royalties by infant US industry. Just like what China is doing to us today, and why without a war we can forget about getting the Chinese to enforce our patents in their country. It's just too lucrative and important for them to respect our copyrights.
And why the hope that replacing export goods with "intellectual Property" (What Lattitude is your idea?) from R&D is doomed to failure.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 13, 9:16am
That's preposterous. If I owe you $1M, and suggest we just forgive all debts between "us," how would you feel about that? Start think in terms of individuals instead of collectives . . . or tell your wife/girlfriend to share herself with me because I'm part of "we/us." I'm not sharing mine. LOL.
If I owe a $1M to myself, I can just say "Myself, I told myself I would give myself $1M at age 40 in return for spending grandma's $100 she gave me when I was 18 for my birthday on tapes. Not even CDs cause it was that long ago. Looks like I'm skint. Myself, will you forgive me?"
"Sure, myself. I forgive myself all my debt."
"Thanks, myself, you're a pal!"
When I own the printing press that makes the world's reserve currency, it's even easier! I can slowly print more money to pay myself the $1M and don't even have to default on the money I owe myself.
The cost of the foreign product plus the tariff will be higher than the cost of the US product. Therefore, jobs will be created in the US.
All right let's try a really simple example: prescription pill re-importation ban. The tariff is essentially raised to the pill's price difference between US and Canada. Does a higher cost of prescription pills create new jobs in the US? Sure it creates jobs at the drug maker and the border patrol / customs inspection, but the higher cost of meds kills jobs in this country and reduce standards of living in this country.
That is laughably incorrect. Look at the history of trade deficits vs. US government deficits. End of story.
Sure, let's look at the history: the LBJ government deficit due to the Great Society and Vietnam War directly led to trade deficit so out of control that the Nixon administration had to close the "gold window" to foreign central banks. The deficit spending of Reagan years led to massive trade deficit vis Japan, hence the Japanese buying spree in the US around 1990. The deficit brought on by the 2001~ wars led to massive trade deficit with the developing world, in turn the sky-rocketing oil prices.
That's your counter argument--winning the lottery?
Winning the lottery is just one form of getting money without a job. Any form of being given money would work just the same, including being given a government bureaucratic "job" not to do anything. It is the benefits and purchasing power that every worker is after, not the work itself. If you insist on disputing that, you are more than welcome to come work for me without pay!
Of course--and with a tariff, the consumers will choose the products made in the US.
And they'd be poorer because of it, just like when they are banned from re-importing the same pills from Canada.
Give me a break. Your dogma is clouding your decision making...
You are calling that "dogma" only because you don't understand economics, don't respect another human being as a fully conscience individual just as intelligent as you are, and have from a young age been brainwashed with MagicThinking that presumes government bureaucrats don't cost anything and are all-knowing and selfless . . . in other words, the dogma of Government as God!
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 13, 9:27am
More commonly repeated nonsense. The ports are owned private entities. They are not in the business for losing money. The US government gets to tax the ports as businesses. In any case, tariff barriers primarily hurt the people who are deprived of the goods. You go to work in order to buy goods that you like, not in order to work. Otherwise, you are welcome to work for me without pay.
Coast Guard? Interstate Highways? Mississippi river dredging? US Army Corps of Engineers? Customs Inspectors? FAA? PATH? Don't forget a ton of goods are flown in, not shipped in, too. LORAN C/NDGPS. Ice Patrol. NWS. NAIS. Newark. LAX. Midway. "Government Cut" Port of Miami. Etc.
International Trade uses a ton of government services.
If I owe a $1M to myself, I can just say "Myself, I told myself I would give myself $1M at age 40 in return for spending grandma's $100 she gave me when I was 18 for my birthday on tapes. Not even CDs cause it was that long ago. Looks like I'm skint. Myself, will you forgive me?"
"Sure, myself. I forgive myself all my debt."
"Thanks, myself, you're a pal!"
Why would there have been a money in that economy that consists of only one actor, yourself, to begin with? Money has lost all its meaning if there is only one actor. The economic ignorance floating around here is truly astounding.
When I own the printing press that makes the world's reserve currency, it's even easier! I can slowly print more money to pay myself the $1M and don't even have to default on the money I owe myself
You do not owe yourself anything when you are the only actor in the economy. In an economy that have other actors, your counterfeiting would essentially steal purchasing power from other actors in pay the debt you owe them.
s
Well, Manchester was created by British Government policy, not by free trade. AFTER centuries of protectionism, when Britain had no equal in the textile industry, it began to indulge in free trade, and even then only with certain European powers, and not in it's own colonies (see: North America in the 18th and India from the 1800s to 1940s).
Where do you learn your history and economics? The British midlands industrialized because of easy access to high quality coal mine. Sre, some of the industrialists may indeed have lobbied the government to give them special privileges one way or another, but that invariably hurt the British people, just like the Stalinist program to industrialize on the backs of Ukrainian and Russian farmers.
It's no accident that Asian countries larger than a postage stamp that chose protectionism industrialized. South Korea, Japan, Malaysia, China - all examples of protectionism in action.
That's because most of those countries during their periods of industrialization were controlled by a small group of industrialists, who were more than happy to treat their own population as captive labor and captive markets using the police power and tariff power of their own countries against their own fellow citizens.
What next, you are going to tell me in order to industrialize all countries have to let the police beat up their workers to put their noses to the grinder? That's somehow good for the country and the people in the long run? That's essentially what protectionist tariff systems do: depriving the workers the purchasing power of their wages in order to benefit the crony industrial captains.
And why the hope that replacing export goods with "intellectual Property" (What Lattitude is your idea?) from R&D is doomed to failure.
I'm not a big fan of patents or copyrights, frankly, as IMHO they are restrictions on trade even in our own country. There are however other types of goods besides manufactured goods. Food for example. As the Chinese massively pollute their own country making all the widgets for us, the quality of our pristine food products can be quite attractive to them. Besides, NYC has been thriving for 200+ years now despite not exporting much food or manufactured products to the rest of the country. So why can't the US be the NYC for the rest of the world? Ideas and opportunities matter.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 13, 9:50am
Why would there have been a money in that economy that consists of only one actor, yourself, to begin with? Money has lost all its meaning if there is only one actor. The economic ignorance floating around here is truly astounding.
Economics is more complicated than Henry Hazlitt's book. Government has the power to tax and coin money. This is fiat money, not gold and silver like in the time of the French or American revolution. The vehicles for disbursing the printed money are much more advanced. The entity that owes the money also owns the world's reserve currency. So it's not the same as some private actor owning money.
The power of a theory lies in it's ability to predict. Libertarianism isn't doing so well. Where the vaunted hyperinflation at that Schiff and the Dude with the Newsletter whose name I forget are always pimping and have been for 5 years now?
Edit: Casey is the guy I'm thinking about.
Coast Guard? Interstate Highways? Mississippi river dredging? US Army Corps of Engineers? Customs Inspectors? FAA? PATH? Don't forget a ton of goods are flown in, not shipped in, too. LORAN C/NDGPS. Ice Patrol. NWS. NAIS. Newark. LAX. Midway. "Government Cut" Port of Miami. Etc.
International Trade uses a ton of government services.
Most of their activities are either unnecessary or can easily be replaced by private sector service providers if necessary. Just like the moment the USPS stopped mail delivery on Saturdays, FedEx stepped in with a Saturday delivery service.
International trade uses a ton of government service because some industrialists decided it that he'd rather have the taxpayers pay the bill instead of paying for the cost of doing business out of his own pocket.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 13, 9:58am
Most of their activities are either unnecessary or can easily be replaced by private sector service providers if necessary. Just like the moment the USPS stopped mail delivery on Saturdays, FedEx stepped in with a Saturday delivery service.
So FedEx doesn't use the highways, airports, radars, weather reports, etc.? All guarded by the USCG, Navy, and USAF?
Maybe FedEx will take over from the Customs Department and inspect all it's own imports? Yeah, that isn't a conflict of interest with the wants of their customers.
International trade uses a ton of government service because some industrialists decided it that he'd rather have the taxpayers pay the bill instead of paying for the cost of doing business out of his own pocket.
No, it's because shit like Ice Patrols and LORAN/GPS systems are expensive services that are better done by one entity and spread out over everybody, rather than being voluntary.
Economics is more complicated than Henry Hazlitt's book. Government has the power to tax and coin money. This is fiat money, not gold and silver like in the time of the French or American revolution. The vehicles for disbursing the printed money are much more advanced.
There's nothing new about fiat money. Ancient Romans had that too, and they were not the first ones either. Contrary to what you were taught in a typical public schools, borrowing at interest has had several thousands years of history. That's why there were biblical bans against it. Didn't it ever occur to you, if banking didn't exist before the 15th century, how did the bible and other old documents advocate the banning of something that didn't even exist and having never existed? Why did they ban it? Fractional reserve and fiat bubble bursts bringing enormous suffering to the population.
The power of a theory lies in it's ability to predict. Libertarianism isn't doing so well. Where the vaunted hyperinflation at that Schiff and the Dude with the Newsletter whose name I forget are always pimping and have been for 5 years now?
Schiff is not the only Libertarian; he is not even an economist. There are other libertarian economists predicted the deflation. If one-mistake-and-you-are-out standards applies to everyone, Bernanke should be out 3 years ago when his prediction about sub-prime being contained proved wrong. Krugman's promotion of Argentina and Brazilian monetary expansion policy last year blowing up in his face as hyperinflation right now! should mean the end of his credibility.
So FedEx doesn't use the highways, airports, radars, weather reports, etc.? All guarded by the USCG, Navy, and USAF?
At what price? Are you sure FedEx' cargo security needs to have Afghanistan and Iraq invaded? Needs 170+ military bases all over the world? That's what FedEx is forced to pay for in taxes when "protection" is a monopoly service.
Maybe FedEx will take over from the Customs Department and inspect all it's own imports? Yeah, that isn't a conflict of interest with the wants of their customers.
You don't think the Customs and border security offloads some of the inspection to FedEx foreign locations already? What planet are you on?
Edit: Casey is the guy I'm thinking about.
Neither Schiff nor Casey are economists. They are fund managers and commentators selling their respective services if you wish to buy. In contrast, men like Bernanke are paid by money forcibly taken from you, and are supposed to be correct therefore allowed to wield special privileges like deciding how much your money is worth.
No, it's because shit like Ice Patrols and LORAN/GPS systems are expensive services that are better done by one entity and spread out over everybody, rather than being voluntary
That's total nonsense. It's obvious shit like Ice Patrol is big shipping companies offloading the cost to taxpayers. Loran and GPS systems were built by the government for military purposes. If they hadn't been there, private sector solutions may have come online a little later than historically the case, but would have cost much much less . . . just like all the government-subsidized trans-continental railroads went bankrupt whereas the private Great Northern built at a slow pace and stay profitable . . . because the private sector do things that are actually create more value than they consume . . . unlike the glory-hound nonsense like monopolizing space for half a century sending some flat-raising mission to the moon then never go back there again.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 13, 10:23am
There's nothing new about fiat money. Ancient Romans had that too, and they were not the first ones either. Contrary to what you were taught in a typical education, borrowing at interest has had several thousands years of history. That's why there were biblical bans against it. Didn't it ever occur to you, if banking didn't exist before the 15th century, how did the bible and other old documents advocate the banning of something that didn't even exist? Why did they ban it? Fractional reserve and fiat bubble bursts bringing enormous suffering to the population.
Did I mention lending at interest not being around since ancient times? Or that lending money didn't happen before fiat money?
Schiff is not the only Libertarian; he is not even an economist. There are other libertarian economists predicted the deflation.
All the big ones I'm familiar with have been on the hyperinflation alarm warpath since the crisis began (and actually, long before it). Lew Rockwell's site and associated contributors have been grinding their teeth over expected hyperinflation since the 90s, and probably before. In fact, some have been on the "Coming Hyperinflation" since the 70s.
Shit, Gary North's first publication was a pamphlet on inflation in 1964.
Did I mention lending at interest not being around since ancient times? Or that lending money didn't happen before fiat money?
Fiat money existed at least as early as the beginning of the 1st century AD, if not earlier. "The Brave New World" may look new to the really uninitiated, but is nothing new.
All the big ones I'm familiar with have been on the hyperinflation alarm warpath since the crisis began (and actually, long before it).
Eventually the collapse of the existing monetary system will be due to hyperinflation. That doesn't mean however there can't be bouts of deflation on the way there. Michael Shedlock and Bob Wenzel have been quite correct in their diagnosis of the 2009 crunch. Besides, even Schiff correctly diagnosed the housing crash in 2007-2008. He was one of the loudest voices calling for the (then coming) housing crash. What's a housing crash if it is not temporary deflation? They have also been correct so far about subsequent massive inflation. We are still waiting to see the next shoe drop.
Compared to them, the Keynesian clowns like Bernanke and Krugman never saw the housing crash coming, and never saw the inflation either.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 13, 11:08am
At what price? Are you sure FedEx' cargo security needs to have Afghanistan and Iraq invaded? Needs 170+ military bases all over the world? That's what FedEx is forced to pay for in taxes when "protection" is a monopoly service.
Yep, a standing military sometimes gets abused. Better than a private force. You see, eventually even the inbred dumbass Kings of Europe realized, "Shucks, when there's no war on, these Condottieri* tend to rape and pillage the countryside as they are unemployed and have no trade other than whacking people with maces and pranging them with crossbow bolts. We'd better have a national standing army."
Of course, you can't build a Navy or Air Force overnight, but I agree with a citizens' militia being the primary land force. A good compromise, since to occupy or 'really have a war' at some point you generally need more than a marine division or two.
BTW, I did not see corporate America opposing the various wars. In fact, they all lined up to take money. Nor did I see AT&T and the other telecoms saying "We won't help you intercept people's private communications without an email, that would be Tyranny!" Instead, they put out their hand and said "Glad to help you spy, Gov, if you'll only help us, ahem, defray some of the costs..."
* Italian for "Contractors", by the way.
That's total nonsense. It's obvious shit like Ice Patrol is big shipping companies offloading the cost to taxpayers.
And fishermen, and ferry services that connect parts of the Northwest and Alaska...
Loran and GPS systems were built by the government for military purposes.
Would a private company had invested all that money before the first handheld GPS was created? ARPA long preceded the internet, which grew from it. Those who developed ARPA had no clue the internet we use today would arise from it when they first started working on it.
Thanks government investment in untested new technology!
If they hadn't been there, private sector solutions may have come online a little later than historically the case, but would have cost much much less . . .
How do we know this? Do we have an alternative timeline transconfabulator than can see what tech would be like today without massive investment in GPS, LORAN, DARPA, Radar, Rocketry, etc.?
What private company was going to pour in billions and billions over years and years just to develop satellite launching systems, which are only marginally profitable at best, to even get to the point where GPS could become a possibility?
Even the private launching of satellites today (which is in it's infancy) is only possible due to massive, long time theoretical investment (and subsidy of commercial and military satellites).
Nothing new under the sun - Prince Henry the Navigator, and later the British Admiralty, heavily subsidized shipbuilding and innovations in order to make navigation safe and possible. No private entity was interested in or had the resources to build prototype ships, subsidize tar and pitch production, figure out ways to defeat shipworms, etc.
So even at the dawn of the age of Discovery, governments played a key role in trade.
Vasco da Gama was not a private employee, but a government bureaucrat. Magellan also, his expedition paid for by the government. Every Iberian Merchant must have drank to his memory thanks to all the money these guys helped make them.
just like all the government-subsidized trans-continental railroads went bankrupt
More than a century later, when the government switched to subsidizing highways and airports instead... Just like municipal gas-lamps went away when the incandescent lightbulb was introduced...
because the private sector do things that are actually create more value than they consume . . .
http://www.youtube.com/embed/qnWbI9RzJqY
http://www.youtube.com/embed/9sOlIvx7Pvs
http://www.youtube.com/embed/CdS16pWSKoE
http://www.youtube.com/embed/mubCkCAEiDQ
Nothing new under the sun.
Of course, private companies often create value, as government often creates value.
Sometimes the microwave is better, sometimes the oven or the stovetop.
unlike the glory-hound nonsense like monopolizing space for half a century sending some flat-raising mission to the moon then never go back there again.
Wow dude. The onion said it best "Man lands on the FUCKING MOON!"
The way you put it, it sounds like the government paid $300 for a toilet seat.
tatupu70
2013 Feb 13, 8:18pm
Sure it creates jobs at the drug maker and the border patrol / customs
inspection, but the higher cost of meds kills jobs in this country and reduce
standards of living in this country.
Why would the higher cost of meds kill jobs in this country? The money is staying in the local economy. And will be spent in the local economy.
That's the fallacy of your dogma--lower costs don't create jobs. Lower costs lead to increased profits which trickle up to the 1% and stay there. No increased demand, no new jobs.
Any form of being given money would work just the same, including being given a
government bureaucratic "job" not to do anything.
Of course, which is why I said that unless you plan on changing the system. If you are proposing communism, then you'd have a point. Otherwise, you need a job.
You are calling that "dogma" only because you don't understand economics,
don't respect another human being as a fully conscience individual just as
intelligent as you are, and have from a young age been brainwashed with
MagicThinking that presumes government bureaucrats don't cost anything and are
all-knowing and selfless . . . in other words, the dogma of Government as
God!
Excellent strawman. Well played, sir.
Why would the higher cost of meds kill jobs in this country? The money is staying in the local economy. And will be spent in the local economy.
That's the fallacy of your dogma--lower costs don't create jobs. Lower costs lead to increased profits which trickle up to the 1% and stay there. No increased demand, no new jobs.
Is this a joke? You claim to be have some economic background, then write something like this? Do you understand the basics of division of labor via mutually willing exchanges? Why don't you position a cop every mile on every road and charge $100 for every mile traveled? The money is all still staying in the economy, isn't it? The economy would be dead due to the dramatic increase in cost of exchanges. Why not raise electricity rates to $10/kilowatt-hour? why not raise property tax to $100/sqft? Why not raise medicine cost 10x? The money is all still staying in the economy, isn't it? Again and again the cost of basic economic exchange (aka "making a living") would be so high that the economy and division of labor would be dead!
You are calling that "dogma" only because you don't understand economics,
don't respect another human being as a fully conscience individual just as
intelligent as you are, and have from a young age been brainwashed with
MagicThinking that presumes government bureaucrats don't cost anything and are
all-knowing and selfless . . . in other words, the dogma of Government as
God!Excellent strawman. Well played, sir.
Read what I wrote again. You, sire, are utterly ignorant when it comes to economics.
Yep, a standing military sometimes gets abused. Better than a private force. You see, eventually even the inbred dumbass Kings of Europe realized, "Shucks, when there's no war on, these Condottieri* tend to rape and pillage the countryside as they are unemployed and have no trade other than whacking people with maces and pranging them with crossbow bolts. We'd better have a national standing army."
Do you just pull history out of your ass like that? Standing military and private force are not mutually exclusive at all. In fact, the first standing armies of post-Roman Western Europe were private armies of the lords, funded by the church money in the domain. That's Charles Martel's "contribution" to medieval western Europe. What the heck does national standing army have to do with the need for 170+ military bases all over the world?
Of course, you can't build a Navy or Air Force overnight, but I agree with a citizens' militia being the primary land force. A good compromise, since to occupy or 'really have a war' at some point you generally need more than a marine division or two.
Once again, what does this have to do with having 170+ military bases all over the world?
BTW, I did not see corporate America opposing the various wars. In fact, they all lined up to take money. Nor did I see AT&T and the other telecoms saying "We won't help you intercept people's private communications without an email, that would be Tyranny!" Instead, they put out their hand and said "Glad to help you spy, Gov, if you'll only help us, ahem, defray some of the costs..."
No kidding genius, what do you think corporations are? They are just individuals conducting business behind corporate veil, individuals that are quite capable of utilizing another constructed concept "the government" to loot you, in the names of maintaining all the "necessary" monopoly services (aka "government services" and "government contracts") that you praise so much.
How do we know this? Do we have an alternative timeline transconfabulator than can see what tech would be like today without massive investment in GPS, LORAN, DARPA, Radar, Rocketry, etc.?
DARPA doesn't do research of its own. It's an outfit of about 100 people only, essentially a hedge fund investing DoD money not for monetary gain but for access/steering/backdoor to new emerging technology. If government funding hadn't been around (and it wasn't around until the 1950's), the sheer curiosity of innovators would be helped by private investors to bring us all the innovations like the previous 100 years with "far greater innovations" (Paul Krugman's recent description comparing technology gains in the late 19th and early 20th century to technological gains in the past few decades . . . and he is correct on this: the internal combustion engine and automobiles made far greater impact on the society; internet is only a new version of telegraph). Steam engine, telegraph, telephone, internal combustion engine, automobile were all invented and brought to the public by the private sector without any government funding. To say that all the technology would be impossible would be as silly as saying food is impossible without the Department of Agriculture.
What private company was going to pour in billions and billions over years and years just to develop satellite launching systems, which are only marginally profitable at best, to even get to the point where GPS could become a possibility?
Probably numerous private companies, just like how the automobile and the personal computer were brought forth, first as very expensive impractical toys, then gradually becoming ubiquitous and indispensable tools. For many years people thought the automobile could never surpass the horse carriage when you really need to get somewhere.
For the available manufacturing technology, doing aviation in the early 1900's was a lot more difficult than rocketry in the second half of the 20th century. The private sector was banned from space launch from the 1950's till 1998 because of the NASA monopoly in space. Now a little more than a decade later there are already more privately owned satellites in space than government owned satellites.
Even the private launching of satellites today (which is in it's infancy) is only possible due to massive, long time theoretical investment (and subsidy of commercial and military satellites).
About as silly as claiming food is impossible without Department of Agriculture subsidies to the farmers. Heck, how would you poor little people be able to buy anything if not for the government collecting a sales tax on it? LOL.
Government "investing" in space industry consists of taking resources and smart scientists/engineers from the private sector, waste most of it and then place the remainder under bureaucratic red-tapes. It's just like sales tax "bringing" you goods and Department of Agriculture "bringing" you food when it actually pays farmers not to grow. Food comes to your table DESPITE the Department of Agriculture. You can afford to buy goods at the store DESPITE the sales tax. Space technology is available today DESPITE NASA ban on private launches for nearly half a century.
Nothing new under the sun - Prince Henry the Navigator, and later the British Admiralty, heavily subsidized shipbuilding and innovations in order to make navigation safe and possible. No private entity was interested in or had the resources to build prototype ships, subsidize tar and pitch production, figure out ways to defeat shipworms, etc.
Why? Because private sailors always had a suicide wish? Prince Henry the Navigator was operating in his private capacity, not some natioanl government. British Admiralty, like most government bureaucrats, would like to take credit for what's done in the private sector, just like NASA claims credit to Tang, plastic, and numerous other inventions that long preceded NASA. The same shipbuilding problems (and non-problems) were solved in other parts of the world long before British Admiralty even existed; there goes your argument of "impossible otherwise."
So even at the dawn of the age of Discovery, governments played a key role in trade.
Vasco da Gama was not a private employee, but a government bureaucrat. Magellan also, his expedition paid for by the government. Every Iberian Merchant must have drank to his memory thanks to all the money these guys helped make them.
You know these because the government bureaucrats had court historians recording their activities, for the purpose of justifying government funding and promoting government and tax collection to the later generations. Portugese fishermen had been fishing off Cape Cod and drying fish on Cape Cod long before Columbus "discovered" the Americas. They just prefer to keep quiet, sometimes even mislead their competition where they got their fish. The rounding of the Cape of Good Hope was accomplished at least as early as circa 500BC, by Hanno the Navigator of Carthage. Too bad the Roman imperial government destroyed the economy so badly a few hundred years later that there wasn't any grandios court historians left in the dark ages to tell us what was happening down the African coast.
just like all the government-subsidized trans-continental railroads went bankrupt
More than a century later, when the government switched to subsidizing highways and airports instead... Just like municipal gas-lamps went away when the incandescent lightbulb was introduced...
Like I said, your history education wasn't great either. The government subsidized transcontinental railroads all went backrupt in the 1890's, a couple decades after they were built, 6 decades before the highways and civilian airports were even started. What the heck would be an airport (or even highway) when the air plane wasn't even invented, and the automobile was still an expensive toy in private tickering labs mostly powered by steam engines.
Funny you should bring up Enron. The stock market corrected the company's value from the 7th largest capitalized company to zero in about 18 months. The government prosecutors took the next half decade or more to bring the company officials to justice. That tells you which corrects mistakes faster. In fact, that's precisely why bubbles have been greatly exacerbated under government management.
Wow dude. The onion said it best "Man lands on the FUCKING MOON!"
The way you put it, it sounds like the government paid $300 for a toilet seat.
Considering what we have got so far from it, a $300 toilet would have been more useful, a $3M Hollywood production on an indoor movie set would have produced just as good footage and saved taxpayers 1000 times the money.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 1:03am
Do you just pull history out of your ass like that? Standing military and private force are not mutually exclusive at all. In fact, the first standing armies of post-Roman Western Europe were private armies of the lords, funded by the church money in the domain.
Yes, in the Dark Ages when life was nasty, brutish, and short, private armies reigned supreme. There was no such thing as a national army; instead you had companions and vassals, who often had sworn men of their own, and special privileges over the ordinary person.
Gang Warfare best describes Dark Ages struggles, with petty lords duking it out (no pun intended) over tiny scraps of land with their hitmen.
The Church tried many times to establish a "Peace of God" between these private armies to limited success.
Once again, what does this have to do with having 170+ military bases all over the world?
Nothing. But many companies love those bases and the military spending. Boeing uses a lot of "Money-Speech" to "Convince" the government to spend like water on aircraft, no. KBR loves the lucrative, cost-plus contracts knowing their Money-Speech guarantees that they'll never be held to account for non-performance. GE makes a bundle on military gear. Even ol' IBM collects nice checks from the military.
The contributions of the MIC - aka "Money-Speech" - are major factors in military spending and intervention.
No kidding genius, what do you think corporations are? They are just individuals conducting business behind corporate veil, individuals that are quite capable of utilizing another constructed concept "the government" to loot you, in the names of maintaining all the "necessary" monopoly services (aka "government services" and "government contracts") that you praise so much.
And that's why anarcho-capitalism/minarchism/libertarianism always fails. Human Nature not to want to have to compete or struggle anymore after amassing a fortune, people begin to feel entitled to have what they've feel they earned, and want to pass it along to their children, and so will dump any problematic principles they had (or twist them and rationalize them) in order to keep their status.
It's a battle of is versus ought. And Is usually wins. We have the humans we have, not the ones we would like to have.
DARPA doesn't do research of its own. It's an outfit of about 100 people only, essentially a hedge fund investing DoD money not for monetary gain but for access/steering/backdoor to new emerging technology.
And those grants go to universities, private companies, etc.? That is, government money is funding this stuff, no?
NVIDIA gets $20M to develop more efficiencies per watt in computers
http://www.smartcompany.com.au/information-technology/053538-nvidia-wins-us20-million-darpa-grant-to-supercharge-low-power-computing.html
Young Scientists get grants from DARPA
http://www.darpa.mil/newsevents/releases/2011/2011/09/13_darpa_grants_more_than_$11m_to_young_scientists.aspx
If government funding hadn't been around (and it wasn't around until the 1950's), the sheer curiosity of innovators would be helped by private investors to bring us all the innovations like the previous 100 years with "far greater innovations
Really?
And of course, this famous DARPA grant
By mid-1968, Taylor had prepared a complete plan for a computer network, and, after ARPA's approval, a Request for Quotation (RFQ) was sent to 140 potential bidders. Most computer science companies regarded the ARPA–Taylor proposal as outlandish, and only twelve submitted bids to build the network; of the twelve, ARPA regarded only four as top-rank contractors. At year's end, ARPA considered only two contractors, and awarded the contract to build the network to BBN Technologies on 7 April 1969. The initial, seven-man BBN team were much aided by the technical specificity of their response to the ARPA RFQ – and thus quickly produced the first working computers. This team was led by Frank Heart. The BBN-proposed network closely followed Taylor's ARPA plan: a network composed of small computers called Interface Message Processors (IMPs), that functioned as gateways (today called routers) interconnecting local resources. At each site, the IMPs performed store-and-forward packet switching functions, and were interconnected with modems that were connected to leased lines, initially running at 50kbit/second. The host computers were connected to the IMPs via custom serial communication interfaces. The system, including the hardware and the packet switching software, was designed and installed in nine months.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ARPANET
Oh, and need I mention that the guys who thought of packet switching to begin with, the backbone of the idea of a global computer network, were "Lazy Government Parasites" - that is, researchers from MIT Lincoln Laboratory (largely Federally Funded, BTW), UCLA, etc?
Steam engine, telegraph, telephone, internal combustion engine, automobile were all invented and brought to the public by the private sector without any government funding. To say that all the technology would be impossible would be as silly as saying food is impossible without the Department of Agriculture.
Here's the difference. I'm not saying that technology is impossible without government. I'm pointing out that a great deal of technology is possible THANKS to government.
My view is nuanced, I believe that sometimes government is the solution and sometimes it isn't.
As far as I can tell, you think the private sector is everything and the government is largely useless, when it doesn't actively get in the way of progress. I don't think history bears that out as a general principle.
The private sector was banned from space launch from the 1950's till 1998 because of the NASA monopoly in space.
Nope.
Try 1984, when launching expendable vehicles into space was legalized by Ronald Reagan. And the motive for banning them was twofold: First, they were worried about who would bear the costs if a liquid fueled rocket slammed into a populated area. Second, they wanted the Space Program to start paying for itself, and hoped a monopoly for NASA would bring in enough revenue. It didn't, because satellite launches via the Shuttle (never a cost effective vehicle) cost more than the netted in income.
The reason we held onto the shuttle so long was it had lots of contractors, shuttles cost more money than rockets, so private industry kept lobbying the government to keep the shuttle despite it's inefficiency in cost and launch frequency as a satellite deployment vehicle.
A great deal many private satellites are actually military satellites sold after they were put in orbit to private industry. See Iridium.
Elsewhere, Arianespace has been around since 1980 launched private satellites, however, it was of course nurtured and partially subsidized by the ESA.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 1:13am
Now a little more than a decade later there are already more privately owned satellites in space than government owned satellites.
Nice move there. How did most of those private satellites get into space? Was the full cost of the launch borne by the satellite owners all of the time?
Speaking of the private development of space, what about the sea - how is that floating libertarian ocean platform idea going? It's been banged around for decades now. Any funding yet? Seems a lot of people want to move there - but don't want to put money down in advance.
Maybe they should do like Sealand and offer patents of nobility for a few Euros.
http://www.sealandgov.org/title-pack
About as silly as claiming food is impossible without Department of Agriculture subsidies to the farmers. Heck, how would you poor little people be able to buy anything if not for the government collecting a sales tax on it? LOL.
Bad Analogy. I give you examples of how government incubates theoretical technology, and you give me an example of gov't ag spending making it possible to eat. Another strawman - as I've said before, both private and public institutions develop technology. I've never claimed that everything is impossible without a modern government. Certainly, primitive peoples lived nasty brutish short lives without out, and still do. The Yanomano and Ache are seldom buggered by government, but they ain't launching rockets or reading Ayn Rand novels, either.
However, there's no doubt that our glut of cereals has everything to do with effective (though i think misguided) government policy: Massive investment in aqueducts and irrigation (esp. West of the Mississippi), Subsidies to Agriculture, subsidies in the deployment of fertilizer, without which much of our marginal grassland could never be used to grow nutrient hungry corn.
ADM, Cargill, etc. love their subsidies and government programs and spend millions to keep it. That's why it's there. There are hardly any more "Family Farmers" left in the States relative to the non-farm population.
Shucks, I thought private companies were on the side of Libertarians? Libertarians are always trying to claim credit for their theory using private companies as examples, yet many (most?) of these private companies keep engaging in... Socialism?
Food comes to your table DESPITE the Department of Agriculture. You can afford to buy goods at the store DESPITE the sales tax. Space technology is available today DESPITE NASA ban on private launches for nearly half a century.
Wow, this is some serious black-white thinking. I don't even know where to begin trying to insert some realty-based shades of grey.
How does food get to me from 1500 miles away but from highways and railroads, all of which are paid for or at least heavily subsidized by government? How do traffic lights, stop signs, paved roads get done without government - do I need to pay 25 cents every time I turn on a different road to the private owners? Rockets weren't almost wholly the results of government sponsored research? Why is the high yield agricultural coastal land being converted into suburbs instead of being used to grow veggies?
just like NASA claims credit to Tang, plastic, and numerous other inventions that long preceded NASA.
But man, General Mills ought to have cut NASA a royalty check because Tang sales sucked until...
"Tang, made by General Foods, is a sweetened drink powder artificially colored and flavored orange. It is one of America's most celebrated chemically created foods...Tang went to space on the Gemini and Apollo missions. The mix was delivered to the astronauts in silver pouches. When water was added, the pouches yielded a sweet, slightly tangy orange-flavored drink that provided the entire day's worth of Vitamin C. By the first Gemini flight in 1965, Tang has been languishing on supermarket shelves for six years. The General Foods dubbed it "the drink of the astronauts," and the new Tang, with a prominent picture of a launch pad on the outside of the canister, soon was rocketing upward in sales and consumption...At the peak of popularity of Tang in the 1960s and 1970s, American households consumed the "instant breakfast" on a regular basis."
---Oxford Encyclopedia of Food and Drink in America, Andrew F. Smith editor [Oxford University Press:Oxford] 2004, Volume 2 (p. 527-8)
http://www.foodtimeline.org/fooddecades.html
As for Plastic, Leo Baekeland attended the University of Ghent to study Chemistry on a scholarship paid by the city government of Ghent. I'm sure Baekeland was thankful that he got a world class education from Belgian taxpayers. Baekeland, of course, was the inventor of the first plastic, Bakelite.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 1:38am
The rounding of the Cape of Good Hope was accomplished at least as early as circa 500BC, by Hanno the Navigator of Carthage.
The Basques along Cape Cod is plausible, but probably not for much time before Columbus. I think it's likely but it's still disputed when exactly the Basques found the New World.
Of course, the first settlement in the New World was the Vikings, and it lasted for centuries, and even had multiple Pope-appointed Bishops. In addition to Newfoundland, Viking artifacts are now showing up on Baffin Island as well.
But there is no evidence that Hanno got anywhere near the Cape of Good Hope.
He may have found the Bight of Benin. This is interesting, and the sources (all secondary, of course) are here, with notes:
http://www.livius.org/ha-hd/hanno/hanno02.html
Yes, in the Dark Ages when life was nasty, brutish, and short, private armies reigned supreme.
Actually the "Dark Ages" was a reference to the lack of court historians recording things for us to read. Archeological digs and what written records of book keeping there is show that the standards of living in Western Europe was improving rapidly during that time, much better than the collapse in the late Roman Imperial period.
Once again, what does this have to do with having 170+ military bases all over the world?
Nothing.
So why do you bring it up again?
And that's why anarcho-capitalism/minarchism/libertarianism always fails. Human Nature not to want to have to compete or struggle anymore after amassing a fortune, people begin to feel entitled to have what they've feel they earned, and want to pass it along to their children, and so will dump any problematic principles they had (or twist them and rationalize them) in order to keep their status.
And the most effective ways to accomplish that would be buying a rent-seeking asset called "The Government." Where did the Rockerfellers, Kennedys and Bushes turn to after making their fortune? No shit, individual human nature tries preserve existing status. Individual holding government power tends to concentrate power. Market competition tends to whittle away at concentration of power. Which side do you prefer for a more fair, more just and more equitable society?
And those grants go to universities, private companies, etc.? That is, government money is funding this stuff, no?
Where do you think the money's purchasing power ultimately comes from? the government printer?
Every time the government makes a grant, it deprives some other part of the real economy even more purchasing power . . . because the government bureaucrats do not work for free. While the geniuses (not being sacastic here, the men and women working for DARPA are very smart) are good at ensuring the DoD having the first dib on emerging technologies, solutions best for the DoD may not be the most cost-effective solution for the rest of the society.
Oh, and need I mention that the guys who thought of packet switching to begin with, the backbone of the idea of a global computer network, were "Lazy Government Parasites" - that is, researchers from MIT Lincoln Laboratory (largely Federally Funded, BTW), UCLA, etc?
What are you trying to prove? Werner von Braun the chief engineer at NASA had the first half of his career working for the Nazi's. Do you want to argue that NASA wouldn't be possible, GPS wouldn't be possible without Hitler? What kind of argument is that? Utter slavishness: it's like arguing all slaves on a plantation would have starved to death if they hadn't been slaves working for the slave-owner. People and talents have alternative outlets even if the historical monopolists did not hijack them.
Here's the difference. I'm not saying that technology is impossible without government. I'm pointing out that a great deal of technology is possible THANKS to government.
Could you read these two last sentences again. You are saying it's possible only because of government in the last sentence, which is directly contracted by the previous sentence.
And the motive for banning them was twofold: First, they were worried about who would bear the costs if a liquid fueled rocket slammed into a populated area.
That's a ludicrous excuse. People can launch into the space over oceas.
Second, they wanted the Space Program to start paying for itself, and hoped a monopoly for NASA would bring in enough revenue. It didn't, because satellite launches via the Shuttle (never a cost effective vehicle) cost more than the netted in income.
In other words, just another government monopoly that didn't work out. The loss making should be no surprise there.
The reason we held onto the shuttle so long was it had lots of contractors, shuttles cost more money than rockets, so private industry kept lobbying the government to keep the shuttle despite it's inefficiency in cost and launch frequency as a satellite deployment vehicle.
Is this supposed to be a surprise? that's the natural result of having the government run a program like that. There is no "private industry" when it comes to the space shuttle program. Every individual working for the program is obviously a private person, so are every contractor operating behind corporate veil. The government-ness of the program is in its spending looted money and not responsible for its own overall profitability. Of course more and more leaches latch on and wouldn't like go . . . . just like any other government department!
A great deal many private satellites are actually military satellites sold after they were put in orbit to private industry. See Iridium.
Elsewhere, Arianespace has been around since 1980 launched private satellites, however, it was of course nurtured and partially subsidized by the ESA.
You are missing the most prevalent form of launches in the past decade+: commercial launch services bought and sold on the open international market.
Nice move there. How did most of those private satellites get into space? Was the full cost of the launch borne by the satellite owners all of the time?
The cheapest launches are bought on the open international launch market. They are now doing things as frivolous as launching the ashes of your remains into space. LOL.
Speaking of the private development of space, what about the sea - how is that floating libertarian ocean platform idea going? It's been banged around for decades now. Any funding yet? Seems a lot of people want to move there - but don't want to put money down in advance.
Maybe they should do like Sealand and offer patents of nobility for a few Euros.
http://www.sealandgov.org/title-pack
The main risk of a program like that is getting raided by the various national governments' military that you love so much. It's like the night scene in gangland, nobody is on the street not because they don't want to, but because they don't dare.
I give you examples of how government incubates theoretical technology,
When? The entire system of classical physics was developed without government funding. Relativity and quantum physics theories were also developed with little government funding. If I donate some money to a university, say MIT, can I then lay claim to all inventions ever come out of there?
The only "scientific" theory that is entirely attributable to government funding is Anthropogenic Global Warming Hypothesis, which has about as much scientific value as the great Number-of-Angels-Dancing-on-the-Pin debate of the middle ages, when the research community was founded by another government-like institution, called the Church.
Scientists are also human beings bound by human nature. If you pay them to develop weapons of mass destruction, they will do it; if you pay them to research witchcraft, they (the young ones looking for income at least) will also do that. That's why the free market place and consumer-driven industries have to be in charge of science funding just like in the 19th to early 20th century when great scientific and engineering breakthroughs were taking place for the betterment of humanity . . . or else the scientists would entirely bend to political agenda in order to get funding. Ask what North Korean scientists have been up to.
I've never claimed that everything is impossible without a modern government.
Yes you have. That's how it is read when you say the government makes this possible makes that possible. Basic deductive logic: A makes B possible ==> if no A then no B.
However, there's no doubt that our glut of cereals has everything to do with effective (though i think misguided) government policy: Massive investment in aqueducts and irrigation (esp. West of the Mississippi), Subsidies to Agriculture, subsidies in the deployment of fertilizer, without which much of our marginal grassland could never be used to grow nutrient hungry corn.
Well, you have the government to blame for that. Glad you are finally seeing the light. The second biggest subsidy for grain production is actually the ban on sugar import from Cuba . . . so fructose corn syrup is found in everything. The biggest is the ethanol fuel nonsense.
Shucks, I thought private companies were on the side of Libertarians?
That's why you are so confused. Corporations are nothing more than individuals operating behind corporate veils. All decisions are made by Individuals. Only Individuals are capable of making decisions and acting. Governments and Corporations are just tools that some individuals use to screw others. Libertarianism is about empowering the individuals, and not making individuals into slaves of the "government" (i.e. slaves of other individuals who are pulling the strings of "the government")
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 2:27am
Why? Because private sailors always had a suicide wish? Prince Henry the Navigator was operating in his private capacity, not some natioanl government.
Oh bullcrap. Henry was a member of the royal family, with estates and control over religious orders as well. That's where his money to fund this stuff came from.
If libertarians are going to say that Royals aren't members of government, then there's a whole bunch of "statist" actions assigned to pre-Modern Monarchies that they cannot then assign to "Governments".
.
Actually the "Dark Ages" was a reference to the lack of court historians recording things for us to read. Archeological digs and what written records of book keeping there is show that the standards of living in Western Europe was improving rapidly during that time, much better than the collapse in the late Roman Imperial period.
The Dark Ages is the time of the post-Western Roman Empire collapse. Most historians accept 800-900 as the beginning of the Middle Ages.
The Dark Ages saw the complete collapse of a monetary economy, the breakdown of infrastructure, trade in the Western Med disappeared almost completely, Pirates regularly raided the South of France, etc. The people of the Dark Ages looked at wonder at the fallen aqueducts the Romans built.
Sure, in the Dark Ages they developed better mail armor, and they got the stirrup from the Asians, because they fought a lot, but I would have much, much rather have lived as an ordinary person (and even more so as an equities or equestrian) in the Late Roman Empire than in the Dark Ages.
So why do you bring it up again?
Nice quote omission. You could have quoted the relevant bits where I discussed large corporations enjoying the contracts from government, which they lobby to keep. There's no doubt the MIC lobbies for war spending and even increasing military activities.
Where do you think the money's purchasing power ultimately comes from? the government printer?
The power of taxation, voluntarily granted to the state by the people. Generally, if enough people really hate the government, it would be replaced.
Every time the government makes a grant, it deprives some other part of the real economy even more purchasing power . . .
... assuming that the money would be spent instead of being shoved under a mattress - or, used to buy government bonds. Or used to buy other productive assets to draw rent from. Etc. Spending it on goods and services or expanding production is not the only option for uncollected tax money.
Most people spend their surplus, the top 1% generally use it to buy more productive assets like Property they can generate rents from.
That's a ludicrous excuse. People can launch into the space over oceas.
Which is why Cape Canaveral is on a Cape. Problem is, the area around it has urbanized heavily in the intervening years. Which is why there is "Flight Termination" of all rockets, including booster rockets for the shuttle:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/4262479
http://kscsma.ksc.nasa.gov/Range_Safety/FlightTermination.html
Which were detonated in 1986 during the Columbia disaster to prevent the chance of damage to populated areas by errant booster rockets.
How does food get to me from 1500 miles away but from highways and railroads, all of which are paid for or at least heavily subsidized by government?
Once again you are falling into the trap of slaves getting food only because the owners feed them. Food get to you because it is profitable for the farmer to grow it, profitable for the truck driver to haul it, and profitable for the store to stock it. The farmer has to pay land tax etc. to maintain the local infrastructure, the truck driver has to pay gasoline tax which more than pays for the road maintenance even after union labor rip-offs, and the store of course has to pay property tax again . . . all these taxes, or cost of doing business when the counterparty is a government monopoly, are not what bring food to your table, but things that the various middlemen have to pay in order to bring food to your table. If there had been more competition in road building etc., the food traders and transporters would be able to bring food to your table for less.
How do traffic lights, stop signs, paved roads get done without government - do I need to pay 25 cents every time I turn on a different road to the private owners?
You are already paying for all of that in your gasoline tax. Gasoline tax is far more than necessary for covering road maintenance and on-going building, even at the monopolistic union contract high cost. Politicians in most jurisdictions have been diverting gasoline tax to other uses.
Rockets weren't almost wholly the results of government sponsored research?
No. Werner von Braun got his inspiration from many American private rocketeers of the 19th and early 20th century.
Why is the high yield agricultural coastal land being converted into suburbs instead of being used to grow veggies?
Because home buyers are willing to pay more than veggie buyers vs. the alternative farther from coast. Veggies don't have to be grown on the coast per se; you can't irrigate a field with sea water anyway: salting the land would kill nearly all plants.
As for Plastic, Leo Baekeland attended the University of Ghent to study Chemistry on a scholarship paid by the city government of Ghent. I'm sure Baekeland was thankful that he got a world class education from Belgian taxpayers. Baekeland, of course, was the inventor of the first plastic, Bakelite.
More regurgitation of the statist propaganda. Bakelite was only one of the early modern plastics. Quite a few others were invented independently and made from entirely different feed material. There is little connection between one type of early plastic to another. They are just large organic molecules. On top of that, someone else would have attended University of Ghent if he hadn't taken up the seat. Leo may even have found other source of money to attend the university, especially if the city hadn't extracted the tax from the city's economy to begin with.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 2:33am
That's why you are so confused. Corporations are nothing more than individuals operating behind corporate veils. All decisions are made by Individuals.
I'm sorry - you've obviously never worked for a corporation. Corporations usually deliberate in groups, or collectives. Very few decisions in large corporation are made solely by one person without heavy debate and discussion beforehand.
Then, on top of lower level matters, there are these groups called boards, and these other groups called investors.
And as somebody who has worked for several large corporations, they are chock full of bureaucrats and red tape and bureaucracy internally. Some, but not all of these functions and functionaries are "waste", some of it is important checks on processes to insure better outcomes.
Oh bullcrap. Henry was a member of the royal family, with estates and control over religious orders as well. That's where his money to fund this stuff came from.
If libertarians are going to say that Royals aren't members of government, then there's a whole bunch of "statist" actions assigned to pre-Modern Monarchies that they cannot then assign to "Governments".
Royal family are not necessarily part of the government. Prince Henry was using his own money as a large land owner, and took on a crew of volunteers.
The Dark Ages saw the complete collapse of a monetary economy,
The monetary economy already collapsed in the late Roman Empire. The silver coin was reduced to having 0.03% silver; That's why the West Roman Empire collapsed.
the breakdown of infrastructure, trade in the Western Med disappeared almost completely,
No different from what would happen to the Pacific and Atlantic when you tariff advocates get your way.
Pirates regularly raided the South of France, etc. The people of the Dark Ages looked at wonder at the fallen aqueducts the Romans built.
The aqueducts had been out of commission for a long time. The city population fled to the country estates in order to avoid taxes that the late Roman Empire tried to collect. The economic collapse took place rapidly towards the end of Roman Empire. Much of the Dark Ages was a gradually building back from the individual country estates linked by traveling merchants (a setup initially structured to dodge late Imperial Rome tax collectors) to bigger networks of exchanges again.
Sure, in the Dark Ages they developed better mail armor, and they got the stirrup from the Asians, because they fought a lot, but I would have much, much rather have lived as an ordinary person (and even more so as an equities or equestrian) in the Late Roman Empire than in the Dark Ages.
You have no idea what late Roman Empire was like in the West. What do you think was happening to the Equestrians when the city of Rome was sacked repeatedly? Why do you think it was so easy for the "nomads" to sack Rome? The frontiers farmers were welcoming the "barbarians" because they wouldn't seek the high tax from the farmers. Eventually the free citizens of Rome voluntarily sold themselves into bondage to the big estates in the countryside in order to avoid the high taxes. Roman taxation of currency debasement got so bad that the taxmen wouldn't even accept the debased coins that the government itself issued.
The market economy did not collapse in the Dark Ages. It collapsed in late Roman Empire. Dark Ages was the gradual building back up from the ashes caused by the catastrophe called the Imperial Government.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 3:04am
More regurgitation of the statist propaganda. Bakelite was only one of the early modern plastics. Quite a few others were invented independently and made from entirely different feed material.
"Statist Propaganda". Wow, I'm talking to a true believer.
I don't claim that government is ALWAYS involved in every invention that ever was.
You, however, dismiss any public role in the development of any technology.
Because home buyers are willing to pay more than veggie buyers vs. the alternative farther from coast. Veggies don't have to be grown on the coast per se; you can't irrigate a field with sea water anyway: salting the land would kill nearly all plants.
Don't be silly. Coastal regions tend to be the most fertile because they often receive more rainfall, and of course because rivers drain out to the lowest level, carrying fertile alluvial soil with them.
You also can't irrigate much of Dry West without damming rivers and creating irrigation systems over hundreds and thousands of miles. Something very difficult for countless landowners to agree upon - and it only takes one hold out to make it impossible.
That's why the government has the power of eminent domain, it's a far more efficient system than trying to get countless landowners to agree to rights and prices. And everybody knows the last to agree will command the highest price.
The farmer has to pay land tax etc. to maintain the local infrastructure,
I always laugh when residents of low tax states like Alabama think their new 4-lane highway got paid for with the $500/year property tax they paid on their .5 acre single wide. Thanks, New York and California taxpayers! Red States are generally the biggest tax redistribution beneficiaries.
If there had been more competition in road building etc., the food traders and transporters would be able to bring food to your table for less.
In most places, there is absolutely nothing stopping private roads from being built. Yet, they almost never get built privately.
Usually what happens instead is a government sells or rents a taxpayer-paid road already built to a private owner for much, much less than it's worth, thanks to Money-Speech.
I'm sorry - you've obviously never worked for a corporation. Corporations usually deliberate in groups, or collectives. Very few decisions in large corporation are made solely by one person without heavy debate and discussion beforehand.
And that would still be decisions made by individual human beings, including deferring to another's opinion. There is no magic being called "group" that can think for itself.
Then, on top of lower level matters, there are these groups called boards, and these other groups called investors.
Once again, each person in there is an individual, and is fully responsible of his/her own actions. There is no magic beast called "board" or "shareholder meeting" that can make decisions for itself without the individual human beings.
This is sounding like debating a German officer at the Neuremberg: no, you are not an automaton under an order. You obey an order because you choose to obey.
And as somebody who has worked for several large corporations, they are chock full of bureaucrats and red tape and bureaucracy internally.
No kidding. Such inefficiency is sustainable for the company because the large corporation has a degree of market power. The government, with its much more thorough monopolistic power than any large corporation, is orders of magnitude more chock full of bureaucrats marking their time and playing with red tapes.
You, however, dismiss any public role in the development of any technology.
Because most involvement is negative. Would you think a monopolistic and bureaucratic institution is a good for developing any technology?
Don't be silly. Coastal regions tend to be the most fertile because they often receive more rainfall, and of course because rivers drain out to the lowest level, carrying fertile alluvial soil with them.
So what, my living room makes for a great food production site with all the sunlight, but it also has far higher opportunity cost, so it is not used as a mini farm.
You also can't irrigate much of Dry West without damming rivers and creating irrigation systems over hundreds and thousands of miles. Something very difficult for countless landowners to agree upon - and it only takes one hold out to make it impossible.
Buy him out if you really think your project is that worthwhile. Developers do that all the time.
That's why the government has the power of eminent domain, it's a far more efficient system than trying to get countless landowners to agree to rights and prices. And everybody knows the last to agree will command the highest price.
Sounds like you would fit right in with Stalinist Russia or Communist China.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 3:16am
Royal family are not necessarily part of the government. Prince Henry was using his own money as a large land owner, and took on a crew of volunteers.
Not necessarily? Maybe - but Henry was absolutely part of the Government of Portugal.
Henry was of the royal family, commanded troops in battle for the nation of Portugal including conquering cities on the North African coast, ruled various estates, appointed people he liked as officials, was commander of a military order.
It is really grasping at straws to say the Henry the Navigator was an entirely private figure.
You have no idea what late Roman Empire was like in the West. What do you think was happening to the Equestrians when the city of Rome was sacked repeatedly? Why do you think it was so easy for the "nomads" to sack Rome? The frontiers farmers were welcoming the "barbarians" because they wouldn't seek the high tax from the farmers. Eventually the free citizens of Rome voluntarily sold themselves into bondage to the big estates in the countryside in order to avoid the high taxes. Roman taxation of currency debasement got so bad that the taxmen wouldn't even accept the debased coins that the government itself issued.
Only part of the story.
The other part is that the agrarian laws of Marius, which determined that public lands should be leased to veterans, was hijacked by the wealthy. One of the reasons the Brothers Gracchi were popular is that they pointed out that the Equestrians in the Senate were breaking their own laws by using land that was set aside - not for free by the way, the renters had to pay the state for it - for their own use. And often for free.
As the Roman Empire conquered more territory, they brought more slaves which displaced the town craftsmen. Our version of slavery is black people picking cotton. In Roman times, slaves did everything from herd sheep to weaving to functioning as scribes and secretaries. Skilled slaves even worked metal and made ceramics.
Over time, a combination of harsh debt laws and cheap imported grains meant Roman freeman lost their lands, which became part of latifundia owned by the wealth and worked by slaves.
Formerly, the bulk of the legions had come from sons of the Freeman Farmer, tough hardy and independent from being small landholders. Now they were poor and living in cities. The Bread and Circuses was a way of putting off reform of the system that benefited the wealthy.
When the growth of imports, loot, and slave labor came to end, Rome collapsed. Equestrians had exempted themselves from all kinds of tax, yet the controlled the lions' share of the wealth. Roman citizens were no longer legionaries because they were starvlings living on a minimal grain ration; many sold themselves into slavery. In response to a lack of legionaries, Rome used more and more mercenaries instead of Romans (Private Contractors again!). Roman industry was ravaged by the import of goods from foreign provinces, destroying yet more tax base.
When the barbarians (themselves under pressure from other barbarians) realized how powerful they were, they began to make emperors themselves. First they used Roman puppets, but then they just took over. So began the Dark Ages.
BTW, Cato gave his in-laws government jobs while whinging about bread and circuses. Cicero expressed glee when his slum buildings collapsed, because he could build them even higher and stuff them full of more plebes.
So yeah, I understand the Roman Era very well. If you look at many of my other posts, you'll realize I have a good command and strong interest in history.
I always laugh when residents of low tax states like Alabama think their new 4-lane highway got paid for with the $500/year property tax they paid on their .5 acre single wide. Thanks, New York and California taxpayers! Red States are generally the biggest tax redistribution beneficiaries.
What are you talking about? Property taxes don't pay highways. Gasoline and road tax does. Gasoline and road tax rates are lower in the south because they don't have winter snow removal cost and don't have to repave as often as they don't have freeze heaves either. In fact, the southern states usually have excess gasoline and road tax that politicians divert to spend on other things.
In most places, there is absolutely nothing stopping private roads from being built. Yet, they almost never get built privately.
That's because the government already collects money via gasoline tax that people pay at the pump. Anyone using private roads exclusively would be paying for the maintenance of public roads that they are not using anyway. That's how a monopoly works.
Usually what happens instead is a government sells or rents a taxpayer-paid road already built to a private owner for much, much less than it's worth, thanks to Money-Speech.
Once again you are just pointing out the concentration of power created by a brain-fart called "government" only facilitates capture.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Feb 14, 3:35am
Once again you are just pointing out the concentration of power created by a brain-fart called "government" only facilitates capture.
I'm pointing out the dangers of money in politics. I don't claim government is wholly or mostly evil. I do admit that government does dumb shit, misallocates money, gets captured by special interests. Even with all those flaws, it is still worth it overall.
That's because the government already collects money via gasoline tax that people pay at the pump. Anyone using private roads exclusively would be paying for the maintenance of public roads that they are not using anyway. That's how a monopoly works.
Some highways are federally funded, partially or entirely, depends on the interests involved. Not all highways are entirely federally funded, some highways receive very little.
I'm pretty sure Property tax can and does pay for highways in many jurisdictions. Many early highways received funding from property taxes, and not all highways are inter-state or even cross multiple counties in some places.
Not necessarily? Maybe - but Henry was absolutely part of the Government of Portugal.
Henry was of the royal family, commanded troops in battle for the nation of Portugal including conquering cities on the North African coast, ruled various estates, appointed people he liked as officials, was commander of a military order.
It is really grasping at straws to say the Henry the Navigator was an entirely private figure.
Perhaps you don't understand the concept of "primorgeniture": The first-born (son) inheriting the entire estate, then in practice in Western Europe. Henry's dad was "the government" then his elder brother was "the government" of Portugal. Henry was not. That's why he had to find his own domain on the high seas. The order you talked about is the Portugese branch of what used to be "Knight Templer, " obviously a "non-profit" (but very wealthy) and non-government organization like the Catholic Church or the RedCross except some of their members can be heavily armed, not surprising considering the main branch had been previously mass-murdered by the king of France coveting their wealth.
One of the reasons the Brothers Gracci
Are you kidding me again? When did the Gracci brothers live? circa 120-130BC. When did West Roman Empire collapse? late 5th century AD. What you are saying is essentially the equivalent of blaming our current economic problems on something happened 100 years before Columbus set sail? before even the last Norse settlement on Greenland died out?
Over time, a combination of harsh debt laws and cheap imported grains meant Roman freeman lost their lands,
Thank you for repeating what I already said. It should be pointed out that grain from Egypt was cheap because the Roman taxpayers were paying for the military rule of Roman Egypt and the control of the sea lanes to enable shipment. On top of that, the Roman government further subsidize grain price when the grain arrives at the port in Italy. That's why individual farmers in Italy became unprofitable.
BTW, Cato gave his in-laws government jobs while whinging about bread and circuses. Cicero expressed glee when his slum buildings collapsed, because he could build them even higher and stuff them full of more plebes.
Exactly like what politicians would do today.
So yeah, I understand the Roman Era very well. If you look at many of my other posts, you'll realize I have a good command and strong interest in history.
Try to stick with the facts and form your own interpretations based on what intelligent actors in a society would do instead of repeating the usual government-glorifying interpretation of events that are force fed to you by court historians.
I'm pointing out the dangers of money in politics. I don't claim government is wholly or mostly evil. I do admit that government does dumb shit, misallocates money, gets captured by special interests. Even with all those flaws, it is still worth it overall.
Glad we agree on something. Government's only value is in keeping out a more abusive version of itself. Its involvement in practically anything else is not worth displacing the private sector that would otherwise quickly respond to the need and keep the cost of the service low over time.
Some highways are federally funded, partially or entirely, depends on the interests involved. Not all highways are entirely federally funded, some highways receive very little.
All highways are maintained by highway funds, which derive their money from tax on gasoline.
I'm pretty sure Property tax can and does pay for highways in many jurisdictions. Many early highways received funding from property taxes, and not all highways are inter-state or even cross multiple counties in some places.
Property tax does not pay for highways. It's debatable whether some happened before the 1950's, or roads before the 1950's could be called highway. What you may be thinking perhaps is some state local and governments having to borrow money to pay for a tiny portion of the construction cost (the bulk of the construction cost of any road is once again taken out of the gasoline tax kitty). Most situations would be borrowed against future toll income. It's possible that some jurisdiction may consider borrowing against county income as pledge (but to be paid back by future gasoline tax) for some really small roads within a single county or few counties. Property tax is collected at county level. The federal government doesn't collect property tax, nor does most states.
Your thesis that somehow CA and NY property tax goes to building highways in the south doesn't make any sense at all.
« First « Previous Comments 275 - 314 of 354 Next » Last » Search these comments
The Federal Reserve's Explicit Goal: Devalue The Dollar 33%
The Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has made it official: After its latest two day meeting, it announced its goal to devalue the dollar by 33% over the next 20 years. The debauch of the dollar will be even greater if the Fed exceeds its goal of a 2 percent per year increase in the price level.
An increase in the price level of 2% in any one year is barely noticeable. Under a gold standard, such an increase was uncommon, but not unknown. The difference is that when the dollar was as good as gold, the years of modest inflation would be followed, in time, by declining prices. As a consequence, over longer periods of time, the price level was unchanged. A dollar 20 years hence was still worth a dollar.
But, an increase of 2% a year over a period of 20 years will lead to a 50% increase in the price level. It will take 150 (2032) dollars to purchase the same basket of goods 100 (2012) dollars can buy today. What will be called the “dollar†in 2032 will be worth one-third less (100/150) than what we call a dollar today.
The Fed’s zero interest rate policy accentuates the negative consequences of this steady erosion in the dollar’s buying power by imposing a negative return on short-term bonds and bank deposits. In effect, the Fed has announced a course of action that will steal — there is no better word for it — nearly 10 percent of the value of American’s hard earned savings over the next 4 years.
Why target an annual 2 percent decline in the dollar’s value instead of price stability? Here is the Fed’s answer:
“The Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC) judges that inflation at the rate of 2 percent (as measured by the annual change in the price index for personal consumption expenditures, or PCE) is most consistent over the longer run with the Federal Reserve’s mandate for price stability and maximum employment. Over time, a higher inflation rate would reduce the public’s ability to make accurate longer-term economic and financial decisions. On the other hand, a lower inflation rate would be associated with an elevated probability of falling into deflation, which means prices and perhaps wages, on average, are falling–a phenomenon associated with very weak economic conditions. Having at least a small level of inflation makes it less likely that the economy will experience harmful deflation if economic conditions weaken. The FOMC implements monetary policy to help maintain an inflation rate of 2 percent over the medium term.â€
In other words, a gradual destruction of the dollar’s value is the best the FOMC can do.
Here’s why:
First, the Fed believes that manipulation of interest rates and the value of the dollar can reduce unemployment rates.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2012/02/06/the-federal-reserves-explicit-goal-devalue-the-dollar-33/
#investing