And there's more, turkey and iran maybe ganging up to hit the
kurds, and sort of telling iraq and the US it is going to happen
no matter what,the turks finally taking the hint and coming to
the conclusion they won't ever be accepted as european, nor
will they be willing to always be the US lapdog (this is *pretty
dang big and important* this week, along with the near miss but
close enough "genocide" resolution in congress, I think
the turks have decided to fish and stop cutting bait), caspian
sea nations saying no using their lands for new wars, china
annoyed with arbusto jr. meeting the dalai lama, putin actually
visiting iran and saying out loud to the coalition of annoyed
western nations lead by the US and UK and now france-
"don't you dare" to the US and israel, venezuela
and cuba merging even more and becoming near defacto alternatives
to US influence in south and central america, and so forth and so
on, but this is enough to chew on for now. Links for all that are
easy to find.
Seems to me they are going to need a rather large global
"distraction" pretty quick now. Hmmm..wonder what
that could be? YMMV, but I'll call further worsening of the
dollar and the economy in the "chickens coming home to
roost" phase, and them pushing a very much enlarged and
complex war or two soon because of that, the traditional way to
come up with the big distraction, see WW2.
This would be actually fun and entertaining if it was a clancy or
ludlum novel, but it isn't...
The mayor of New York declared a war on horse-shit lining the streets, and somebody stole a highly anticipated apple pie baked by Auntie Mary-Anne that she left cooling by an open kitchen window.
We are living this right now, it ain't past history for funzies and sitting around sipping port and blowin stogies in the gentlemans club. Could be some pretty "interesting times" icebergs dead ahead, we can A) go ho hum, always happened in past history, and besides, this economic titanic is unsinkable, and wars and economic crashes are just..videogames, no one really gets hurt! or B) learn from history, notice current events, notice trends and patterns, analyze better, work out possible solutions in advance, and so on. You can't fix problems before they are identified. You can be proactive or reactive, pick one.
That's how I think on it anyway. Discuss and re-cuss and just plain cuss matters, see how maybe we can make things even just a little bit better, even on a small scale. "things better" on a million small scales equals to an impressive large scale improvement.
Part of this whole forum gig, how can we collaborate, look at issues, and use our brains and technology and efforts to make things better? I think one of the cool things about this whole intarweb thing is how fast we can learn of events, and get to see a lot of points of view and how fast a lot of folks can comment and then spread wisdom and insight. Sure, a lot of crap gets spread too, but one can learn to pick out the good bits here and there.
You took a whole bunch of issues:
1) Weak dollar: Primarily due to speculation that the European and Asian economies will outperform the US in (at least) the short term
2) Mortgage collapse and credit crunch: A real-estate bubble and poor due-diligence by lenders
3) Crude oil prices: OPEC-limited supply with increasing demand
4) Turkey: A regional issue with the Kurds
5) Iran: Potentially looking at nukes
There are a couple of links there but most of them have very little to do with one-another. Most of them would be issues even if every other item in that list didn't exist. Yet you, in line with all the other Technocrat gloom-and-doom editors, link them altogether and speculate about some upcoming wag-the-dog operation.
You suggest the interwebs is good for discussing and solving these type of issues. True. But it also seems pretty good platform for all those suffering paranoid delusions to mutual re-assure one another.
None of those points are delusions, they are all real data points. Paranoid is subjective, I prefer, well informed to real threats. Your points 3,4 and 5 are all connected, we could see a surge/spike in global oil prices hitting well over 100 bucks a barrel, perhaps as high as 200, if there is a wider and more complicated war there, with iran and turkey hitting the kurds in the north, and the us and israel hitting iran (odds on favorite now), and what with russia warning against such an attack. Points 1 and 2 aren't going away and any number of economists and variousd learned smart guys are saying this is a real problem. All in all at a minimum we are looking at severe worsening of the economy, all the way up to a huge regional war. I'd say that qualifies as "interesting" at least. And "wag the dog" might be highly accurate, I would agree with you there, but it still will suck (larger warfare in that area) and be responsible for the deaths of a lot of people and a lot more economic hardship. I don't take stuff like that lightly. As to doom and gloom, again, you have to identify problems before they can be addressed, this is called in the trade (IT and otherwise), threat analysis and mitigation and is a serious science.
"Britain's foreign office says it plans to submit a claim to the United Nations to extend its Antarctic territory by a million square kilometres
...
May 13, 2009 marks a deadline for states to stake their claims in what some experts are describing as the last big carve-up of maritime territory in history.
Around 7 million square kilometres - an area the size of Australia - could be divided between nations around the world."
"It's likely not to go far because it is contested sovereignty," said Dr Hemmings, a senior fellow at the University of Canterbury's Gateway Antarctica. "The UK proposal would be sure to attract a raft of protests too."
Yeah, and I can see the US paying this WTO resolution about as much heed as it has done to the one about Internet gambling brought by Antigua and now supported by the EU and many other nations. Aside from a very little lip service, none what so ever. If things don't change, then sooner or later there are going to serious efforts to get some sanctions in place at the WTO, and that's when the fun is really going to start.
I think I'm going to stock up on popcorn for the initial rounds, and "essential supplies" for the later ones.
Russia doesn't want anyone bypassing them for petro pipelines in the caspian region, something the U.S. is trying to do with support of trans-Caspian pipeline under the sea through Azerbaijan and into europe. Turkey might be changing their minds about being piping lane for the west, and if that's true maybe they want the U.S. out of region including Iraq.
When Vice President Dick Cheney visited Kazakhstan last year, he used the occasion to launch a fierce attack against President Vladimir Putin of Russia, accusing him of rolling back democracy and suppressing human rights.
What ever happened to 'speak softly and carry a big stick'?
Generally speaking, the Libertarian position is that you are free to do whatever you wish as long as it doesn't hurt others. If you, as a consenting adult, wish to do lines of coke off a hooker's ass then that's just fine by them.
On the other hand if you wish to take money from one group and give it to another through the force of government for the betterment of the 'community' then you'd be out of luck.
There are a bunch of different kinds of Libertarians who don't necessarily agree on a whole lot but they usually agree that theft, coercion and fraud, especially when committed by the State for the 'community' is counterproductive and wrong.
The problem is that they're so vocal about the state, that they often either outright encourage, or ignore, theft, coercion and fraud committed by the individual.
And since it's pretty darn easy, given a lack of regulation on business, for a smart con artist to use theft, coercion, and fraud to jump from corporation to dictatorship of small countries simply by buying them up, that's a pretty darn big loophole.
That's about the most uninformed analysis of the Libertarians I've ever seen...
Basically, the rules apply to *all* no matter if you're in the 'public' service, a private individual or a corporation...equally.
The current system is so much better protecting the people from con artists and small countries from having dictatorships imposed on them by the agents of corporations, large governments.
We should just take the already broken system and expand it because it would do a much better job at protecting the interests of the people, like the Soviet system.
Basically, the rules apply to *all* no matter if you're in the 'public' service, a private individual or a corporation...equally.
Yes, but if nobody law abiding is allowed to use force, who's going to stop the unlawful from using coercion and fraud?
The current system is so much better protecting the people from con artists and small countries from having dictatorships imposed on them by the agents of corporations, large governments.
Nobody said that.
We should just take the already broken system and expand it because it would do a much better job at protecting the interests of the people, like the Soviet system.
The current system IS the Soviet system- and is the natural end for any system that allows the infinite acquisition of wealth.
Yes, but if nobody law abiding is allowed to use force, who's going to stop the unlawful from using coercion and fraud?
Who said you couldn't use force? It's just the government wouldn't have a monopoly on it's application to steal from and coerce their 'subjects'. Would be really hard to wage war if *both* sides had to convince the people to volunteer based on the legitimacy of the action instead of just resorting to conscription. Also had to finance it through voluntary contributions instead of involuntary taxation or 'monetizing of debt'.
How many civil lawsuits resort to the use of force anyway? If someone were to win a suit they would be entitled to just compensation from the offending party and more than likely take ownership of some/all of their property and/or their future earnings until their debt was paid.
The government force model is not beneficial to anyone except the agents of the government who directly benefit, i.e. police, prison guards, district attorneys... The victims aren't compensated for their loss and prisons aren't much of a deterrent.
The current system IS the Soviet system- and is the natural end for any system that allows the infinite acquisition of wealth.
That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. The only difference is you assume concentrating all the wealth in a government monopoly will be any different than the current system or any of the other failed socialist experiments.
Well, not the only difference. There is actual evidence that the system I propose is a viable, workable system while yours is a pie in the sky dream world.
How many civil lawsuits resort to the use of force anyway? If someone were to win a suit they would be entitled to just compensation from the offending party and more than likely take ownership of some/all of their property and/or their future earnings until their debt was paid.
Well, I know I'm not going to just submit to somebody who claims to have won a lawsuit without the sheriff backing it up. And I'm not even going to bother to appear in a court that doesn't have the threat of force of back it up. So why should I let somebody take ownership of my property or future earnings, if there's no threat in not doing so?
The government force model is not beneficial to anyone except the agents of the government who directly benefit, i.e. police, prison guards, district attorneys... The victims aren't compensated for their loss and prisons aren't much of a deterrent.
On the other hand, without force, why would ANYBODY submit to a law? At all?
That's exactly what I've been saying all this time. The only difference is you assume concentrating all the wealth in a government monopoly will be any different than the current system or any of the other failed socialist experiments.
Incorrect. I prefer the Distributionist system- in which all property is owned by individuals, but an individual is limited in what they cn do with that property. If it harms others, if it reduces competition in the marketplace in any way, even by eliminating compeitors, then it's not allowed.
Well, not the only difference. There is actual evidence that the system I propose is a viable, workable system while yours is a pie in the sky dream world.
Yeah, like it's not a pie in the sky pipedream to expect people who lose lawsuits to give up property without a threat of force.
Well, I know I'm not going to just submit to somebody who claims to have won a lawsuit without the sheriff backing it up. And I'm not even going to bother to appear in a court that doesn't have the threat of force of back it up. So why should I let somebody take ownership of my property or future earnings, if there's no threat in not doing so?
Through your inaction you would be surrendering your property so the rightful owner would have every right to come and take possession of *their* property. There is no prohibition of use of force to defend your property rights or hiring someone else to do it for you as in a private security company. Also, if somebody were to consistently disregard the rights of others nobody would do business with them and without government intervention to back them up they would lose all their business to competitors.
On the other hand, without force, why would ANYBODY submit to a law? At all?
Because it is beneficial if you wish to live in a society with others to not do certain things like rape, pillage and plunder. If there were only laws protecting private property rights and the only justifiable use of force was to protect these rights then you would have limited cases where force would be needed.
All other cases would be involving contractual agreements and would involve civil suits so there is no need to use force unless of course the judgments were ignored and the losing party refused to comply but only then to take possession of contested property, not to jail the offender for criminal actions in government monopoly prisons.
Incorrect. I prefer the Distributionist system- in which all property is owned by individuals, but an individual is limited in what they cn do with that property. If it harms others, if it reduces competition in the marketplace in any way, even by eliminating compeitors, then it's not allowed.
Limited by whom? Limited by economic considerations or by some bureaucrat's sense of morality, it makes a big difference.
Your model would result in a very inefficient system because instead of having to innovate to remain competitive they would just do things whichever way they chose because their position in the marketplace is protected by government intervention. This is exactly the model you claim to wish to replace...think telecom monopolies.
Yeah, like it's not a pie in the sky pipedream to expect people who lose lawsuits to give up property without a threat of force.
The only way to back up your distributionist model is through government coercion and theft which leaves the door wide open to a Hitler or Stalin to take power and use the force of government to protect their rule instead of bettering the lives of the people. This has happened *every* time, there are no known exceptions in all of the history of humanity.
Through your inaction you would be surrendering your property so the rightful owner would have every right to come and take possession of *their* property. There is no prohibition of use of force to defend your property rights or hiring someone else to do it for you as in a private security company.
At which point, what's to stop me just hiring a private security company to take whatever the heck I want and just claim that I'm using the force to defend my "private property rights"?
Also, if somebody were to consistently disregard the rights of others nobody would do business with them and without government intervention to back them up they would lose all their business to competitors.
So what? Since there's no government use of force, there's nothing to stop such a person from simply hiring a private security company (which you allowed above) to remove their competitors from the marketplace.
Limited by whom? Limited by economic considerations or by some bureaucrat's sense of morality, it makes a big difference.
Ideally, both. Limited by the local government from buying land in an area which is already served by the same industry, prevented from doing business because the consumer would rather spend money with somebody from the same tribe than a foreigner.
Your model would result in a very inefficient system because instead of having to innovate to remain competitive they would just do things whichever way they chose because their position in the marketplace is protected by government intervention. This is exactly the model you claim to wish to replace...think telecom monopolies.
More like Guilds- long before Telecom monopolies. But smaller- the advantage is the guy you're buying from is within walking distance, which means that the guy who cheats gets tarred, feathered, and run out of town on a rail by vigilantes.
Sometimes, efficiency isn't worth anything at all- the guys spraying lead paint on toys in China are very efficient at what they do, but because they are foreign, you can't punch them in the nose for it.
The only way to back up your distributionist model is through government coercion and theft which leaves the door wide open to a Hitler or Stalin to take power and use the force of government to protect their rule instead of bettering the lives of the people. This has happened *every* time, there are no known exceptions in all of the history of humanity.
One difference- I'd use modern tech to allow the tribes to defend their own borders. Hard to send a panzer squadron across a no-man's land of 100 lb bombs on Hellfire missiles, patrolled by UAV.
Of course, the fact is, your system would end up EXACTLY the same way- except for the name would be Carnegie or Rockefeller....
At which point, what's to stop me just hiring a private security company to take whatever the heck I want and just claim that I'm using the force to defend my "private property rights"?
Because you wouldn't have valid property rights so your private security company would be compromising their ability to retain new clients. Any reputable company wouldn't take a job of that sort since the judgment clearly states that the property is no longer yours. No different from any other 'might makes right' argument.
So what? Since there's no government use of force, there's nothing to stop such a person from simply hiring a private security company (which you allowed above) to remove their competitors from the marketplace.
You obviously missed the 'civilized society' part. Private security companies would also have competition so their interests most likely wouldn't coincide with the interests of the person hiring them.
They also couldn't force people to buy their products at a higher rate than they would be paying if there were free competition.
Limited by the local government from buying land in an area which is already served by the same industry, prevented from doing business because the consumer would rather spend money with somebody from the same tribe than a foreigner.
If the consumer chose to spend their money locally then why would you need government intervention? Also monopolies have a proven track record of abusing their monopoly position if they have a government granted *right* to exist.
More like Guilds- long before Telecom monopolies.
Guilds were mostly used to reduce competition in order to keep prices higher, I can see why you would like them. No different than any other special interest group using government to redistribute wealth from the many to the few.
Sometimes, efficiency isn't worth anything at all- the guys spraying lead paint on toys in China are very efficient at what they do, but because they are foreign, you can't punch them in the nose for it.
I missed the part where people are forced to buy Chinese made toys. The whole lead issue had in fact lead to an increase in domestically made toys which, according to your plan, wouldn't be possible because companies would have protection against competition.
One difference- I'd use modern tech to allow the tribes to defend their own borders. Hard to send a panzer squadron across a no-man's land of 100 lb bombs on Hellfire missiles, patrolled by UAV.
That would change nothing since all the dictators achieved power from within the collectivist system. The Central Planner can't operate without an iron fist because consumer preference is direct opposition to their plans.
Of course, the fact is, your system would end up EXACTLY the same way- except for the name would be Carnegie or Rockefeller....
Uh huh...
Every single old school monopolist either used the force of government to enforce their monopoly position or were so much better than their competitors that they honestly earned a large chunk of the market.
Ignoring the government monopolist which wouldn't exist under a Libertarian system, the honest businessman would soon lose their dominant position if they tried to abuse their de facto monopoly because they would be opening themselves up to increased competition.
Most of the early anti-trust actions were taken on behalf of the less efficient competitors who chose not to compete on their own merits but to use government to penalize the dominate company for their success. None of these cases led to a better deal for the consumers but resulted in higher prices due to a less efficient marketplace. They also generally didn't have a true monopoly but just a majority of the market, true monopolies are only possible through government fiat.
Then again, 'market failures' are really only the failure of the market to do what the socialists intended...
I should tally up all your competitive - anti-competitive statements that directly contradict each other but that would be petty.
Because you wouldn't have valid property rights so your private security company would be compromising their ability to retain new clients. Any reputable company wouldn't take a job of that sort since the judgment clearly states that the property is no longer yours. No different from any other 'might makes right' argument.
My point is that government is like guns. Ban them for the ethical and legal, and only the unethical and criminal will have guns. Ban government from using force, and only the criminals will have force. If I'm successful, then the non-reputable company with only one client will also be successful (after all, their goons get first pick of the loot).
In absence of the government being able to enforce the law, people WILL make their own law. Might makes Right was THE prevailing form of government for most of the last 2 million years, after all.
You obviously missed the 'civilized society' part. Private security companies would also have competition so their interests most likely wouldn't coincide with the interests of the person hiring them.
Which just makes for war, not love. There is no such thing as civilization- it's a thin myth that gets stripped off in times of trouble. When faced with violence, ANY man will turn violent. There is only ONE proven way to keep them from doing so, and that is a government of force. Even if that force is only the force of exile.
They also couldn't force people to buy their products at a higher rate than they would be paying if there were free competition.
The smart man always pays his mercenaries well and first. This limits ethical considerations while following orders, and enables those mercenaries to eliminate their competition, which is good for the business.
If the consumer chose to spend their money locally then why would you need government intervention?
Because of freedom of movement and fraud. There's nothing to stop a foreigner from claiming to be local.
Kind of like the illegal immigrants do today- they make up fake papers and since there is no governmental use of force against them, they defraud their employers and society.
Also monopolies have a proven track record of abusing their monopoly position if they have a government granted *right* to exist.
Ah, but you see, under distributionism, they don't. Or rather, they have the right to exist, but don't have an unlimited right to exist; they have the monopoly of their home turf, and NO right to expand. If they raise their rates, then the villagefolk come with pitchforks and torches.
Guilds were mostly used to reduce competition in order to keep prices higher, I can see why you would like them. No different than any other special interest group using government to redistribute wealth from the many to the few.
Except, of course, that historically guilds redistributed wealth from the few to the many. Anybody could become an apprentice and a master. Once a master, they had their territory to serve.
I missed the part where people are forced to buy Chinese made toys.
If you have a kid, you know that there are no other toys which hold their interest on the market. Well, weren't- after recent problems, small mom&pop toy shops are opening up again, making toys in the United States, they have maybe 1% of the market. But you won't find anything other than "Made in China" at WalMart, Toys R Us, Target, or any other nationwide chain. Such toys have too narrow a profit margin to offer to parents.
The whole lead issue had in fact lead to an increase in domestically made toys which, according to your plan, wouldn't be possible because companies would have protection against competition.
Under my plan, the production would never have gone to China in the first place- because LOCAL companies would have protection against FOREIGN competition. Not necessarily even all competition- but they'd have protection against foreign manufacturers.
That would change nothing since all the dictators achieved power from within the collectivist system. The Central Planner can't operate without an iron fist because consumer preference is direct opposition to their plans.
The central planner can't exist if there is no center. That's the point of distributism. Government is necessary- but there's no need to have government more than a few blocks from the people they rule.
Every single old school monopolist either used the force of government to enforce their monopoly position or were so much better than their competitors that they honestly earned a large chunk of the market.
And they did so because they were allowed to accumulate wealth.
Ignoring the government monopolist which wouldn't exist under a Libertarian system, the honest businessman would soon lose their dominant position if they tried to abuse their de facto monopoly because they would be opening themselves up to increased competition.
Unless, of course, he killed that competition whenever it sprang up. There's nothing in the libertarian system to stop it, because government is forbidden from regulating business or using force. And if the consumers have no choice, then that is a monopoly.
Most of the early anti-trust actions were taken on behalf of the less efficient competitors who chose not to compete on their own merits but to use government to penalize the dominate company for their success. None of these cases led to a better deal for the consumers but resulted in higher prices due to a less efficient marketplace. They also generally didn't have a true monopoly but just a majority of the market, true monopolies are only possible through government fiat.
Efficiency should not be the goal of an economy- taking care of people should be the goal of an economy. Efficiency is not morally defensible, it leaves too many people behind.
Then again, 'market failures' are really only the failure of the market to do what the socialists intended...
True - since efficiency isn't morally defensible.
I should tally up all your competitive - anti-competitive statements that directly contradict each other but that would be petty.
Go ahead- because there's a message in there. That message is- you're fighting against socialism, but distributism isn't socialism. You're so extreme that you think the middle is the opposite side.
Here's an article dealing with the theory of private security companies, it addresses all the points you bring up and more.
Ah, but you see, under distributionism, they don't. Or rather, they have the right to exist, but don't have an unlimited right to exist; they have the monopoly of their home turf, and NO right to expand. If they raise their rates, then the villagefolk come with pitchforks and torches.
That doesn't make sense at all. Instead of using a well proven method that leads to lower prices you would have a monopoly situation where the only way to keep the prices low is through the threat of violence.
This also doesn't deal with the uneven distribution of natural resources or labor. If one village has an abundance of farmland and another has very little but an abundance of iron the farmers wouldn't be able to trade their grain for iron because they would be in direct competition with the monopoly farmers in the iron village. If the farmers in the iron village couldn't produce enough food for the miners and they needed to import grain you would need a high tariff on the imported grain to ensure the local farmers could compete and this would cause the miners to spend more on food and less on other goods and services. Instead of having cheap imported grain letting people have more disposable income to spend thereby expanding the economy your plan would cause everyone but the protected farmers to have less overall wealth.
This is really nothing new, your ideas have been discredited in practice and theory for a while now.
Efficiency should not be the goal of an economy- taking care of people should be the goal of an economy. Efficiency is not morally defensible, it leaves too many people behind.
Unless of course you wish to have a stable system...
Why don't you read this book before you engage in any more economic debates to save some time. If they don't outright disprove your ideas then you might be on to something but nothing you've been arguing is in any way novel or hasn't been tackled in the past.
Dollar Meltdown
OK, I'll call it. Talking heads on TV might not, but I will. The economic meltdown is started and accelerating. Oil went over 89 bucks a barrel. The debt dollar repatriation into different names of debt is slowing. Manipulations and shenanigans in the gold market. Once again lowballing the CPI numbers (Just remember what you were paying at the grocery store last year). Some of the big cheerleaders have stopped doing jumping jacks. And SecTreas says the mortgage and banking "little blip" isn't even close to being over, despite the huge free money "liquidity injection" they concocted.
And there's more, turkey and iran maybe ganging up to hit the kurds, and sort of telling iraq and the US it is going to happen no matter what,the turks finally taking the hint and coming to the conclusion they won't ever be accepted as european, nor will they be willing to always be the US lapdog (this is *pretty dang big and important* this week, along with the near miss but close enough "genocide" resolution in congress, I think the turks have decided to fish and stop cutting bait), caspian sea nations saying no using their lands for new wars, china annoyed with arbusto jr. meeting the dalai lama, putin actually visiting iran and saying out loud to the coalition of annoyed western nations lead by the US and UK and now france- "don't you dare" to the US and israel, venezuela and cuba merging even more and becoming near defacto alternatives to US influence in south and central america, and so forth and so on, but this is enough to chew on for now. Links for all that are easy to find.
Seems to me they are going to need a rather large global "distraction" pretty quick now. Hmmm..wonder what that could be? YMMV, but I'll call further worsening of the dollar and the economy in the "chickens coming home to roost" phase, and them pushing a very much enlarged and complex war or two soon because of that, the traditional way to come up with the big distraction, see WW2.
This would be actually fun and entertaining if it was a clancy or ludlum novel, but it isn't...