patrick.net

Strategist says

Jazz, you are complaining a lot without offering a solution.

What is your solution?

I think you just posted it above. I'll read it.

Strategist says

Strategist says

Jazz, you are complaining a lot without offering a solution.

What is your solution?

I think you just posted it above. I'll read it.

You know there is always something to complain about. Isn't it nice you are completely free to do so, without the fear of jackbooted gestapo coming to drag you in front of the firing squad.
You are still not providing a solution. :(

jazz music says

Government is a tool. Government has no motive without someone to drive it.

That is a fallacy. The government is NOT a monolith, it is a bunch of individuals who follow their self interest, without any regard to the greater good. This is NO different than the private sector. This is human nature.

Cept the private sector is held accountable.

To deify government is an absurd fantasy. One that if followed will ALWAYS lead to misery. You gotsa to have accountability, there ain't none in state government and less than none in federal government, to think otherwise is childish in the extreme.

indigenous says

none in federal government, to think otherwise is childish in the extreme.

There is no way possible a federal government 3000 miles away with trillion dollar budgets can even hope to be responsive to its citizens- there is just too much going on and too much money.
It's hard enough for the local school board to be responsible to its community

smaulgld says

There is no way possible a federal government 3000 miles away with trillion dollar budgets can even hope to be responsive to its citizens

Xactly, is it possible more can get this idear?

indigenous says

smaulgld says

There is no way possible a federal government 3000 miles away with trillion dollar budgets can even hope to be responsive to its citizens

Xactly, is it possible more can get this idear?

And if you have too much government you get bigger deficits, bigger bureaucracy and more inefficiency.
Anyway, its time to have some wine at Macaroni grill.
See ya tomorrow.

sbh says

The free market is not beholden to consumers

Sure it is, as I indicated by the examples of Montgomery Ward, Sears, Walmart, Amazon.

sbh says

If it could get way with violent coercion

And that is why we need the rule of law.

sbh says

To be sure, consumers and competitors can be, and have been, ripped off, lied to, killed and bankrupted by market participants in the search of profit.

And that is why companies go out of business, as the consumer votes with his feet and buys from a competitor.

sbh says

In the same way that conservatives only want "freedom" to be the freedom to be conservative, capitalism only wants markets to be free to seek profit, and not to serve consumers.

The greediest person in the world will not make a dime more because of his greed. He will only make money based on this ability to aide his customers in their endeavors.

You have made your ignorance abundantly clear.

sbh says

capitalism only wants markets to be free to seek profit, and not to serve consumers

A company can only seek profit lawfully by serving consumers with a product or service at a price the consumer is willing to pay.

If a company "rips off, lies to, kills" it won't be profitable unless the government does not enforce the laws that allow it to profit from such unlawful acts.

smaulgld says

Capitalism puts the consumer in charge- it is the ultimate form of democracy

Don't like a product don't buy it. Like it buy it.

The only poorly run companies that provide bad products are government sponsored. In a free market they would be driven out

This works right up to the point where the production of corporations move overseas where the value of their labor is gained by outside markets and the profit is shared only between a very small minority. It's ok for the minority to profit, but when production moves outside the target market, said market will always be buying the product at a loss, no matter what price they pay for it. It's a fundamental rule of economics that consumers must have money to be consumers. When you take away their jobs, you remove their ability to consume, and thus cut down the tree of the economy at its root.

Quigley says

This works right up to the point where the production of corporations move overseas where the value of their labor is gained by outside markets and the profit is shared only between a very small minority.

The production raises the standard of living of the other country, as it did with China, in the last 10-15 years the per capita income has gone from $500 to $7000.

This has raised the standard of living of the American consumer by a lot.

The underlying cause of this situation has been mercantilism, this has artificially kept the value of the Yuan lower than the market would have been if left to the market. The US did the same thing in the early 20's which led to the boom at that time. The real losers in this situation was Chinese consumers as the house hold income went down. Same thing for the US in the early 20s.

Without government intervention this would not have occurred as the market would have kept the value of the Yuan higher and the dollar higher in the US in the early 20s.

sbh says

The greediest person in the world will not make a dime more because of his greed. He will only make money based on this ability to aide his customers in their endeavors.

This is the most naive piece of bullshit you've ever spewed. You have to say it over and over because without it you have only the pointless sociopathy of capitalism as it eats its seed corn for the sake of one quarters growth rate.

Read the legalese in your credit card agreement. Buy internet and cable TV with ATT and find out how they've fucked you not with their advertised product but with the "registration" of it. None of this is consumer service, it's entirely consumer exploitation. Then you'll say that's the fault of government. You're an intellectual coward.

SBH, your entire comment completely made my day. I can now go to bed not feeling that the world is overrun by sociopathic ignoramuses. It truly does help me sleep. It is rather comforting to know that there are people in the world with a conscience and an intellect. Cheers.

sbh says

Implicit in the lawful market is the government. Businesses cheat.

And you don't think government does?

sbh says

Otherwise my law trumps your law when I have more money or greater willingness to use violence.

I'm sure willingness, ability I doubt.

sbh says

fact that when the cheating succeeds it is because of government inefficiency or corruption.

So you do not blame government for bailing out the TBTF banks? Who's fault was that? It was a corrupt government Bush, Obama, and Bernanke, Paulsen, Geitner and the cronies.

sbh says

Companies live for years lying and delaying legal action and counter suing, unethically destroying consumers and competitors.

Generally the companies pay the government to regulate the companies who are successful so they can gain market share. Or they just go out of business, usually because of the burden of government.

sbh says

Business doesn't give a fuck about consumers, it only cares about profit.

So the willingness to satisfy customers is just a charade? At the very least the company has the goal of getting more market share. Your statement here is truly stupid. By that definition Bernie Madhoff should be very successful right up until the govt caught him, except they didn't the SEC was told 5 times by a financial analyst about the fraud and they ignored him.

Your idea on this is naive bullshit.

sbh says

Buy internet and cable TV with ATT and find out how they've fucked you not with their advertised product but with the "registration" of it. None of this is consumer service, it's entirely consumer exploitation.

sbh says

Buy internet and cable TV with ATT and find out how they've fucked you not with their advertised product but with the "registration" of it. None of this is consumer service, it's entirely consumer exploitation.

The customer can simply stop buying the cable service, which is not possible with government.

sbh says

Then you'll say that's the fault of government. Y

Yes, you are a dumb ass

hrhjuliet says

I can now go to bed not feeling that the world is overrun by sociopathic ignoramuses.

Whether you think so or not you are economically illiterate.

indigenous says

hrhjuliet says

I can now go to bed not feeling that the world is overrun by sociopathic ignoramuses.

Whether you think so or not you are economically illiterate.

Your opinion, not a fact. Good for you for having the self-esteem to believe you are the judge of who is economically literate. Alas, if we could all be so very confident.

hrhjuliet says

“we have put excessive emphasis on owner-occupied housing for social objectives,.

Who are "WE" ? The Govt, media, community groups ?

so some blame capitalism...

hrhjuliet says

SBH, your entire comment completely made my day. I can now go to bed not feeling that the world is overrun by sociopathic ignoramuses. It truly does help me sleep. It is rather comforting to know that there are people in the world with a conscience and an intellect. Cheers.

LOL, SBH is a sociopathic ignoramus. He wants to structure your life. He thinks he is a great orator like Hitler.

sbh says

it boggles the mind of a sentient being that some people would lay our fate at the feet of a sociopathic system that values only efficiency and profit.

no.. it makes alot of sense... eventually the profits get plowed back in further expansion and growth of business. Other industries benefit from consumer savings/spending. Else no profit not savings no economic growth! thus shortages will ensue. Its no wonder USSR one found only long lines of shoppers and shortages....

hrhjuliet says

Your opinion, not a fact.

Ok a few questions about the facts.

1 What is the cause of inflation? Is it good or bad?

2 Does war boost the economy?

3 Does minimum wage raise aggregate income?

4 Does government spending increase aggregate economic activity?

5 Is monopoly a method for business to control the market?

6 Has government healthcare raised the standard of living of the people in Britain?

7 Is it better to have fiat currency or a gold backed currency?

8 Do tariffs protect the people of a country?

9 What is the 1.5 multiplier?

Since you have a superior British education these questions should be easy for you to answer.

indigenous says

By that definition Bernie Madhoff should be very successful right up until the govt caught him, except they didn't the SEC was told 5 times by a financial analyst about the fraud and they ignored him.

To have gone to the SEC would have been the wrong move.. better go to FBI since SEC doesnt regulate non public entities... when was the last time the SEC reviewed a non-public companies (like a SV start up) as they often review publicly traded companies ?

thomaswong.1986 says

To have gone to the SEC would have been the wrong move.. better go to FBI since SEC doesnt regulate non public entities... when was the last time the SEC reviewed a non-public companies (like a SV start up) as they often review publicly traded companies ?

Maybe so but an analyst is who caught him.

sbh says

It boggles the mind of a sentient being that some people would lay our fate at the feet of a sociopathic system that values only efficiency and profit.

That would be socialists trying to plan an economy according to their own visions of efficiency. Whereas in a relatively free market place, individual participants express their wishes and relative orders of importance through their purchase decisions. "Profit" in a relatively free market place means satisfying more of other people's "wants" at the cost of less "sacrifices" by other people. That may indeed be anathema to people who desire to build their own political grandeur at the expense of other people's blood and sweat.

I am an archetypal Scot: I revere thrift. But, as a world participant, and not a mere pedant, I recognize that government is not subject to the rigors of markets.

What's that supposed to mean? Are you saying that the person wearing government costumes should be able to extract resources at will from others for free? without consent from the victims?

Conversely, who in their right mind conditions markets to the benefit of government?

That would the government officials regulating the market place to their own benefit. That's the bulk of the current law making process: proposing a law that threatens the livelihood of an industry then wait for the industry to cough up political donations; once the existing firms are paying up, they may as well pay to have laws in place that would limit competition. The ultimate loser in this game are the consumers. The corporations are essentially being tax-farmed by the politicians, to extract political donations.

Only the simple-minded see the two as having the same goals or the same set of demands. Only government can stand up to the power of capitalism.

The government has no goals, nor do corporations per se. Both are artificial entities, puppets. Real people use government and corporations to gain advantage over other real people. Often times it's the same people going through the revolving doors between government and corporations.

Only capitalism can give virtuous life to the stored labor of human industry.

Do you really think the craftsmanship that went into the horse carriage had less "stored labor" than the stamped steel auto body shell? "Stored labor" is irrelevant just like Marxist Labor Theory of Value is irrelevant and wrong. The value of an object is in the eyes of the beholder and relative to other objects. That's why central planners making decisions on other people's behalf are doomed to failure. Individuals have to be empowered to make decisions and make choices for himself and herself.

a href="http://patrick.net/?p=1241619&c=1075529#comment-1075529">indigenous says

Ok a few questions about the facts.

1 What is the cause of inflation? Is it good or bad?

2 Does war boost the economy?

The causes of inflation are varied, and whether or not it is good or bad is an opinion.
I think printing money is the largest offender and believe it's bad. Does that make my answer correct? No, it's my opinion.

Does war boost the economy? Seriously, what a pathetic question. Is rain wet? Of course war boosts the economy. When companies like Lockhead Martin gain, the stock market gains. Is it good for our economy in the long run? No, it is not. Your remedial questions are only meant to patronize me. Just because I was a science major please don't assume I didn't study economics.

The rest of your questions can be answered by my many earlier threads and comments about monopolies, the fiat system, New Keynesian, naive Keynesian and mercantilism. Most of my economic posts are before 2014, if you are truly interested in my opinions on these economic systems

I don't have time to write what I have already written about before, because you see Sir, tonight I have a more important job: I am the Easter Bunny. (:

hrhjuliet says

I think printing money is the largest offender and believe it's bad. Does that make my answer correct?

Yes

hrhjuliet says

Does war boost the economy? Seriously, what a pathetic question. Is rain wet? Of course war boosts the economy.

No it does not. A similar situation would be spending money on fixing a broken window. If that is true could you keep breaking windows to boost the economy?

hrhjuliet says

Your remedial questions are only meant to patronize me.

Yup I learned it from you, I hope you did better in your science classes.

Wars often boost GDP. They do not boost the real economy, but usually destroy the economy or at least distort the economy into war production that has little peace time value in the eyes of individual consumers.

Keynes' main career achievement was conflating GDP with the real economy. The poisoning of mind has been carried out wide and deep. Before Keynes, GDP was a metric for debt service capacity, not the size of economy (except from the perspective of a bankster trying to extract from the economy).

I was just reading about the German mark tonight, and saw this:

"From 1900 to 1933, the United States adhered to a gold standard as well, with the value of the dollar being fixed at a price of approximately one-twentieth ounce (troy weight) of gold (one troy ounce of gold was actually valued at US$20.67)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_gold_mark

So gold is worth $1300 today, for an "inflation" of ~60X since that bad man took us off the gold standard.

Per the 1940 Census I see that the house I rented a room in in 1986-87 in West LA for $400/mo rented for $65 a month in 1940, and 60 x $65 is $3900, which is about right for that area (1B apartments go for half that)

But its neighbor 10763 W Rochester had a valuation of $8500 in 1940, and 60 x $8500 is $500,000 -- only about 40% what zillow says this SFH's valuation is.

http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/10763-Rochester-Ave-Los-Angeles-CA-90024/20504931_zpid/

So something more than inflation is going on with home prices. Which makes sense, since interest rates drive home prices more than rents.

(the cool thing is the lady I rented the room from in 1986 was on the 1940 census! She was such a nice lady, and looking back on it was a privilege that she was renting out a room to me)

(her husband made $4200 in 1939, so home values were about 2X incomes then, and rents were under 20%)

(ah, right, the two income trap explains a lot of this price differential)

Want government labeling? Walmart will be moving into organic foods.
I'm sure they'll do as good a job as the SEC does with ferreting out fraud
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-08/sec-goldman-lawyer-says-agency-too-timid-on-wall-street-misdeeds.html

sbh says

indigenous says

sbh says

Implicit in the lawful market is the government. Businesses cheat.

And you don't think government does?

Of course it does and you've heard me say as much. Both entities share the identical sins, hence they must lean against each other. Being simple minded you would destroy the one and claim the other is flawless. I would never be so naive.

Happy Easter Everyone. Now back to solving world problems.
I understand businesses cheat as there is a profit motive. How does the government cheat? And what is the motive? I just don't get it.

Strategist says

How does the government cheat? And what is the motive?

Government is not a monolith they are individuals who can hide behind the anonymity of "government".

Evil by definition is choosing to be complacent. Government is a culture of complacency. And individuals exploiting at the expense of the greater good. To greater or lesser degree this is treason.

They cheat by using unions to be overpaid and by not doing their jobs and by by stealing as with the case of the city of bell or paying cronies as with TBTF

Most do not realize they are stealing but they are stealing none the less.

Business does not steal as they are held accountable to the marketplace. They can cheat to some extent as sbh suggests but they are caught sooner than later and it hurts their business. They can cheat though government cronyism as Goldman Sachs does or by creating monopolies through government.

sbh says

The government suspended mark to market and prevented the market clearing and the financial collapse of the world economy.

This was the meme, but it were just a meme.

Paulsen secured through the FED, that derivatives and sub prime mortages were monetized by the FED.

indigenous says

Strategist says

How does the government cheat? And what is the motive?

Government is not a monolith they are individuals who can hide behind the anonymity of "government".

Evil by definition is choosing to be complacent. Government is a culture of complacency. And individuals exploiting at the expense of the greater good. To greater or lesser degree this is treason.

They cheat by using unions to be overpaid and by not doing their jobs and by by stealing as with the case of the city of bell or paying cronies as with TBTF

Most do not realize they are stealing but they are stealing none the less.

You are describing corruption by government officials. Corrupt officials do not benefit the government, they benefit themselves. Unless the country is a dictatorship there is no motive for the government as an entity to cheat. We, the people control the government, and we can replace our politicians at will, even between elections.

Strategist says

Corrupt officials do not benefit the government, they benefit themselves.

Xactly

Strategist says

Unless the country is a dictatorship there is no motive for the government as an entity to cheat.

Tru Dat

Strategist says

We, the people control the government, and we can replace our politicians at will, even between elections.

What makes you think that?

indigenous says

Strategist says

Corrupt officials do not benefit the government, they benefit themselves.

Xactly

Strategist says

Unless the country is a dictatorship there is no motive for the government as an entity to cheat.

Tru Dat

Strategist says

We, the people control the government, and we can replace our politicians at will, even between elections.

What makes you think that?

We can impeach Presidents, and recall Governors as in the case of California governor - Davis.

Strategist says

We can impeach Presidents, and recall Governors as in the case of California governor - Davis.

Ok but what about votes being stolen by candidates, wars being caused/started for the benefit of cronies, an entire industry, healthcare, being coerced into government control, etc, etc.

The problem is that pesky complacency that so many are affected by...

sbh says

Maybe you're not as stupid as you sound. Businesses are cons. When they've fucked their customer long enough they just move on to the next one.

This is simply a stupid statement from some one who has either never worked in business or is totally dishonest. You're just as good at creating boogey men of the private sector as indignous is of government. It's like watching two little kids go nah, nah, nah.

indigenous says

Strategist says

We can impeach Presidents, and recall Governors as in the case of California governor - Davis.

Ok but what about votes being stolen by candidates, wars being caused/started for the benefit of cronies, an entire industry, healthcare, being coerced into government control, etc, etc.

The problem is that pesky complacency that so many are affected by...

That does not affect the ability to impeach Presidents or recall governors.

bob2356 says

This is simply a stupid statement from some one

Who is the antecedent?

Strategist says

hat does not affect the ability to impeach Presidents or recall governors.

Sure it does.

indigenous says

Strategist says

hat does not affect the ability to impeach Presidents or recall governors.

Sure it does.

How?

Strategist says

How?

By inducing group thinking. This convinces the collective to quit believing their lying eyes and to just do what you tell them to do.

This was the product of Edward Bernays, who showed Wilson enough, for the communist countries to proclaim they learned everything they knew about about propaganda from him, Wilson. This the sort of thing that sbh swears up and down were his idea when it was anything but.

sbh says

smaulgld says

A company can only seek profit lawfully

Implicit in the lawful market is the government. Businesses cheat. Those who vilify the government as the sole criticism of "markets" are biased liars. You don't get to blame government for BOTH capitalism's desire to cheat the consumer for profit (this is intrinsic to humans and their business entities) and the fact that when the cheating succeeds it is because of government inefficiency or corruption.

Inherent in human nature is fraud for some. Institutions enable it on a larger level. Capitalists do not have an initial desire to cheat customers for profit any more than your neighbors have an initial desire to rob your home. Some may but for most businesses and people their primary aim is not to commit crimes.
Similarly most politicians don't run for office to get kickbacks and bribes.

Yet these things happen. Madison wrote if men were angels, no government would be necessary. I take the view that large business and large government are inherently more corruptible than smaller ones. If big government enables big corporations, I think a smaller government would be less able to facilitate unlawful, unethical and un earned profits that big companies make.

Both big business and government are to blame. More essential goods and services, however, come from businesses than government so I favor curbing government more than business.

Reduce the government size, and let big companies try to cheat customers and competitors will drive them from the market.

Here is an example of how a big government regulatory agency with a massive budget is ineffective in regulating the big banks

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-08/sec-goldman-lawyer-says-agency-too-timid-on-wall-street-misdeeds.html