Dollar Meltdown

disco

Wed Oct 17 15:14:08 -0700 2007

manage

You could take any day at just about any point in history and come up with a list of global issues like you just did.

Dollar Meltdown

Scott Johnson

Wed Oct 17 15:40:26 -0700 2007

manage

ok disco.  february 3, 1827.  go!

Dollar Meltdown

disco

Wed Oct 17 19:20:05 -0700 2007

manage

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.

ya, so what?

zogger

Wed Oct 17 19:42:16 -0700 2007

manage

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.

ya, so what?

disco

Thu Oct 18 07:32:13 -0700 2007

manage

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.

ya, so what2?

zogger

Thu Oct 18 21:12:50 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Dollar Meltdown

Charles E Hill

Wed Oct 17 15:35:40 -0700 2007

manage

You forgot one.

Dollar Meltdown

tqft

Wed Oct 17 17:05:10 -0700 2007

manage

I see your trade claims and raise you the entire mineral wealth of Antartica

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/17/2062451.htm?section=justin

"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."

 

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/britain-claims-slice-of-pie-from-its-antarctic-shelf/2007/10/17/1192300859283.html

"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."

 

Whoever heard of a war over resources?

Dollar Meltdown

zocalo

Thu Oct 18 13:48:00 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Caspian Sea - fuel, not just use of their lands for war

rubycodez

Wed Oct 17 16:01:01 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Caspian Sea - fuel, not just use of their lands for war

Uncle Entity

Wed Oct 17 17:01:40 -0700 2007

manage

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'?

Caspian Sea - fuel, not just use of their lands for war

rubycodez

Wed Oct 17 18:42:41 -0700 2007

manage

now it's "have a big mouth and smack often with big stick"

the impending payback for all the admin's jackassedness is going to be really painful for us

Dollar Meltdown

phred14

Wed Oct 17 16:44:05 -0700 2007

manage

But the real question is what can the ordinary citizen do, besides sever ties with society.

Dollar Meltdown

Uncle Entity

Wed Oct 17 16:56:56 -0700 2007

manage

Rock The Vote

Dollar Meltdown

phred14

Wed Oct 17 18:43:28 -0700 2007

manage

I'm roughly aware of the Libertarian position on regulating business, and though I partially agree, I think it's a bit naive, and neglects community.

What about the Libertarian position on regulating morality and my personal life?
Top Cops in UK-end Drug Prohibition

Dollar Meltdown

Uncle Entity

Wed Oct 17 19:09:42 -0700 2007

manage

Neglects community huh?

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.

Dollar Meltdown

President4242

Thu Oct 18 12:18:08 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Dollar Meltdown

Uncle Entity

Thu Oct 18 15:00:15 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Dollar Meltdown

President4242

Thu Oct 18 16:11:42 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Dollar Meltdown

Uncle Entity

Thu Oct 18 16:45:05 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Dollar Meltdown

President4242

Thu Oct 18 16:54:21 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Dollar Meltdown

Uncle Entity

Thu Oct 18 17:50:04 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Next time will be different though...

Dollar Meltdown

President4242

Thu Oct 18 18:25:18 -0700 2007

manage

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....

Dollar Meltdown

Uncle Entity

Thu Oct 18 19:33:24 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Dollar Meltdown

President4242

Fri Oct 19 07:06:27 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Dollar Meltdown

Uncle Entity

Fri Oct 19 14:52:40 -0700 2007

manage

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

President4242

Tue Oct 23 07:14:03 -0700 2007

manage

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.

Greed is such a strong urge in human nature that the only way to keep the prices low is through threat of violence.  Taking a competitor's business is a form of violence- his family will suffer for it.  It's kinder to use a bullet.

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.

Wealth doesn't exist.  It's a myth.  And thus is fake, totally fungible.

Unless of course you wish to have a stable system...

My definition of a stable system is one in which there is no risk and everybody is able to take care of their families.  Your definition of a stable system is one where random people are able to get rich and the majority of the people starve.

I've seen those books before, and th\ey fail to adequately punish criminals and eliminate them from society.  In fact, their system REWARDS those who don't play by the rules, as long as they keep lying, they keep earning.  Why don't you actually address my question directly?  Are  you afraid to?

Dollar Meltdown

Uncle Entity

Tue Oct 23 14:57:49 -0700 2007

manage

Greed is such a strong urge in human nature that the only way to keep the prices low is through threat of violence. Taking a competitor's business is a form of violence- his family will suffer for it. It's kinder to use a bullet.

You mistake greed for entrepreneurial activity.

What about in the case of new technologies replacing older industries, i.e. buggy whip makers? They clearly suffered by the invention of the automobile, maybe we should ban all new development and live how people lived for thousands of years using animal power for transportation...

Or...under your system the buggy whip makers would be perfectly justified in burning down the Ford factory and engaging in violence against its workforce.

Wealth doesn't exist. It's a myth. And thus is fake, totally fungible.

Huh? What exactly do you propose to replace 'wealth' with, whips and chains and nothing for you except what the Central Planner deems is necessary for your basic survival?

My definition of a stable system is one in which there is no risk and everybody is able to take care of their families. Your definition of a stable system is one where random people are able to get rich and the majority of the people starve.

Why do you always ignore historical evidence? All the collectivist experiments resulted in exactly what you attribute to capitalism, no exceptions.

Capitalism on the other hand has resulted in all you see around you and if indeed a majority of the people starved as a result how do you explain the last few hundred years where it operated mostly unhampered and more human progress was achieved than in all of human history preceding it?

I've seen those books before, and th\ey fail to adequately punish criminals and eliminate them from society. In fact, their system REWARDS those who don't play by the rules, as long as they keep lying, they keep earning. Why don't you actually address my question directly? Are you afraid to?

The real question is have you actually read them...

So posting a link to an article that discusses in depth the issue of private security companies that are allowed to operate in a theoretical free market is considered dodging the question? I was under the impression that citing a reference was an acceptable rhetorical device.

I missed the part where criminals were actually rewarded in a free market system. I guess if you have some off the wall views like 'advertising is fraud' you could make that logical leap.

I have a mental image of you trying to read one of those links and getting to a part that doesn't agree with your personal views and just going 'that's bullshit' and never reading another word...tell me I'm wrong.

Dollar Meltdown

Charles E Hill

Thu Oct 18 05:46:18 -0700 2007

manage

For reference, here is the official Party position.

Dollar Meltdown

Thornton

Thu Oct 18 06:00:22 -0700 2007

manage

While we're at it, let's rock the tax system, too.

Dollar Meltdown

zogger

Wed Oct 17 20:07:24 -0700 2007

manage

Forewarned is forearmed! For every individual it is different, a response, but knowing about events should be enough to get you inspired to..whatever the heck remediation/tangible insurance steps you might want to take. I don't think you have to withdraw from society, but I think people can arrange their lives so that if various functions of society change radically in a short time frame that they can "weather the storm" better. We call this in the preparedness community "getting the survival mindset". Raw basic example,. say you live down near the gulf coast. Having pre cut easy to attach plywood covers for your windows all made up ready to go is a lot better than thinking about it and trying to pull it off 8 hours before the eye hits. Apply the same sort of thinking to every aspect of your life, economics included. All eggs in one basket, or a variety of eggs in a variety of dispersed baskets.

Hmm. Like today I am discussing our future fuel needs with joe boss, he just got back from the huge ag fair, the sunbelt expo, so I pumped him on what the biofuel vendors were showcasing, brought him up to speed on some stuff I have found out, and both of us agreed around here a "normal" crop like sunflowers might be the best way to go for biodiesel, that and making better use of our huge mass quantities of chicken litter. That jatropha shrub looked interesting but wouldn't work here most likely. Fuel is still marginally affordable today, but in a year, 5 years? Who knows. We use between 4-5 thousand gallons/year, so it is something to consider if it double or triples in cost within 5 years (or 5 months). That's just us here though, everyone else's needs will be completely different. I want to, by this time next year, to be able to at least make a very small test batch every week, say just a few gallons, as we refine techniques, then go from there with something that will work well. And I don't want to wait to do this until fuel hits ten bucks a gallon with maybe a rationing aspect to it (happened before, no guarantees it won't happen again).

Dollar Meltdown

President4242

Thu Oct 18 12:22:57 -0700 2007

manage

Given your location, I'm surprised you're not raising Spanish peanuts for the oil.  Not sure how many acres it would take you to raise 5000 gallons though.

Then again, I think peanuts are a shade plant- so why not a mixed field of sunflowers and peanuts?

Dollar Meltdown

zogger

Thu Oct 18 21:46:00 -0700 2007

manage

Well, right now I have limited cleared space for mass quantities of anything. I can't take away from our pasture and hayfields. There's also the equipment needed (seed drills/planters/some sort of harvester) etc that I just don't have for any large scale endeavor. The one guy locally who started doing it this year is already a huge grain farmer and has all the equipment alread. I'm supposed to go over sometime once he has all his gear up to see how it is doing. He's doing the sunflowers, they get more oil than corn or most other stuff (industrial hemp would probably be good, but the feds don't seem to like that idea), but no interplanting that I am aware of. That would probably be a beat to harvest, seeing as how peanuts are below ground and sunflowers *ain't*.. Peanuts here in georgia are all mostly way down below macon. Georgia is a big state as east of the big muddy states go, we are pretty far from southern georgia where all the peanut action is. totally different climatic zone there..hmmmhere ya go, map (crappy but good enough). We are two zones north of where the peanuts come from. The best I might be able to do next year is maybe a one acre or so test crop of sunflowers or whatever, and use my little wheelhorse with a 36 inch rototiller to prep the dirt after a fast plow (do have a small plow) and do a pull behind planter or some hand push planter deal, whatever I can find cheap, then have to harvest by hand and then onto processing, etc. I'm also keeping an eye on this algae deal, that might be promising for a more automated system using tanks and plumbing stuff.

Like I said, still within the small testing sized range. If/when it looks to be doable and economical then I can think about true mass quantities, but it would still be a lot of work. I don't think it would be easy or cost effective to clear trees to try and make new improved land, that is *insanely* hard and expensive nowadays, that's why it is such a shame to see them tax farmers out of existence with property tax boosts and see cleared good cropland go for completely dumbass stoopid strip malls and such like. The only other thing I can think of is to use chicken litter, but haven't even looked into that yet really. I've done some methane before from litter, and also some batches just from weeds, but we need diesel, not methane so far, and the problems with methane are not easily addressed outside of millions in stainless steel equipment (it comes out really acidic and eats the digester and pipelines, etc) if we wanted to replace our propane (which is a much larger cost than our diesel bill, we do over 6 figures gallons a year propane, some ginormous amount, there are three 60,000 gallon tanks and they get filled.

Modern farming on any sort of decent scale is a huge cost -upfront and operating- with very little profit to it right now. All the real profit starts once the stuff leaves the farm (unfortunately). Personally,and this is a high note, even with the test batches, if I can get enough to run my diesel pickup and at least one of my mowers I would be pretty happy. It's like my solar PV investment, not a replacement for all my electric needs in a "normal" day, but push comes to shove in an emergency, we could get by with just that.

World War 2 was a distraction?

Martin Blank

Wed Oct 17 18:17:01 -0700 2007

manage

Roosevelt may well have manipulated the public into going along with the entry into the war, and maybe baited Japan into attacking first, but calling it a distraction is really pushing the line of reality.  The US was going to be drawn into it almost no matter what, because if Britain had fallen, control over the Atlantic would have ended up in entirely Axis hands, something that the US would not have allowed even with its non-interventionist stance.  Even if Britain had held out, had Japan succeeded in neutralizing Asian opposition and distracting Russia, the Middle East would have fallen cleanly under Axis control, split between all three major Axis nations, again drawing in the US because it would have limited access to the Indian Ocean, most of the Pacific Ocean, and the North Atlantic.

I'm less concerned over this instability than some others, mostly because I see more important changes at work.  The Chinese Communist Party is approaching a serious rift in direction, with two equally-powerful sides claiming the proper path, and up-and-coming middle- and upper-class citizens wanting more say in their government.  Sure, China could make US lives difficult by doing serious manipulation of the value of the dollar, but it would face a lot of very displeased finance secretaries around the world, and would be shooting itself in the foot by way of killing a large part of its export market.  Europe is facing economic crunches in the form of a coming retirement crunch (they've been trimming back health benefits in some countries for a few years now), continued violations of budgetary policies by France, and the rising value of the euro, which is hurting tourism and causing jobs to be exported to the US, of all places.

Iran is the current linchpin of the future, and I think Tehran is enjoying this position.  It has been a long time since Iranian whim set the course for the near future of the entire world.  Attack Iran, and the world condemns and situations possibly get far more complex, possibly escalating to what could be called World War III.  Let Iran continue on its present course, and the situation could get far more complex if Iran detonates a nuclear warhead, an action which may stabilize the region but which might also escalate into what could be called World War III.  Current predictions are that Iran's nuclear program is probably ten years, give or take, from producing a nuclear weapon.  I think that in that time, we'll see a new Iranian president (I don't see Ahmadinejad being re-elected, as his popularity at home is dropping as fast as the economy), and I see this as the best chance possible for a de-escalation of tensions, especially if the new president is able to open up more of the Iranian nuclear industry, and either prove that it's completely peaceful or allow whatever dual-use components are present to come under IAEA scrutiny.

Honestly, I see about three more years of serious tension, and whether we can make Iraq work and whether Iran can remain unbombed are going to determine a big portion of the future path of this country, and maybe the entire world.

World War 2 was a distraction?

Bryan Price

Wed Oct 17 18:52:23 -0700 2007

manage

I would think hope that we would be done with NBC by now.  (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical warfare)

Obviously, not.  And RNA (Robotic, Nanotechnology, Artificial intelligence) warfare will probably be much more subtler than NBC when RNA starts rearing it's head.  You don't need centrifuges or other weird hardware for RNA. :(

World War 2 was a distraction? yes, and a manipulation

zogger

Wed Oct 17 19:30:49 -0700 2007

manage

You had bankers funding all the sides in that conflict (fat city), all the idealogies, all the startups, the reds, the nazis, etc and the beginnings of large transnationals profiting from it. lather, rinse repeat. Eisenhower warned us (because he lived it, went along with it, and over the next decade and change recognized how evil it had gotten and how more powerful it would get-guess on my part but seems quite reasonable given what he said).

Besides his famous "military industrial complex statements, there is also this gem, look familiar? "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded."

Ike's estate should get randi's million buck psychic award, he nailed a lot in that speech

World War 2 was a distraction? yes, and a manipulation

Martin Blank

Wed Oct 17 19:48:51 -0700 2007

manage

There are some things that are simply the Right Thing To Do, and getting involved in World War 2 was one of them.  I don't see it as a distraction at all.  From a purely economic perspective, it was an enabler, but far above and beyond that, it was morally right to get into active combat, because the US was the sole industrial power that had not only the resources and the strategic position to undertake war production levels required to fight on three or four fronts, but also the determination (once awoken) to prevent Berlin and Tokyo from splitting up much of the world between them.  Maybe it did require some manipulation, but sometimes that gray-area nudge is required.  Yes, it's a fine line, and yes, the motives are sometimes debatable, but Roosevelt generally did the right thing in that regard.

Some, arguably much, of what we earned from that has been wasted in the intervening decades, and Ike was right about a great number of things that would happen after his presidency.  But that does not besmirch the general overall good that was done by the US -- among other countries -- in propping up the Allies and leading much of the battle to win the war.

World War 2 was a distraction? yes, and a manipulation

Uncle Entity

Wed Oct 17 21:36:17 -0700 2007

manage

What did we really win from WWII anyway, a 60 year reprieve from totalitarianism?

Right now we are on the knife's edge where our 'free' society could go either way. The government engineered economic crisis is more than enough to push us into collectivism like the last great meltdown and the almost complete socialization of the US economy and then it's just a small step to dictatorship.

Ike was close but Hayek was right on the money...

things somewhat messed up

rubycodez

Wed Oct 17 19:02:14 -0700 2007

manage

I still think it would take one more major thing to go into economic tailspin, mideast could sure do it, I don't see why Iran would just sit around knowing someday it could be hit when it could preemptively make some stuff happen the way it wants, with full backing and protection of Russia and a few other regional powers.  I'm expecting  a full NATO-type alliance soon in that area, as in attack one you get the Russian nuclear arsenal for paypack.

things somewhat messed up

Erick Tyson von Mueller

Thu Oct 18 09:42:31 -0700 2007

manage

Any alliance of Iran with neighboring countries would be quite surprising. An alliance of neighboring countries against Iran would be more likely. Which countries in the region supported Iran against Iraq during the Iran-Iraq War? The answer is only Syria and Libya. (Even the Soviet Union supported Iraq.) While Syria has become a proxy of Iranian regional activities because the Assad regime looks toward Iran for survival (both Iran and Syria are on the U.S. hit list), Libya is not now likely to do anything meaningful to jeopardize its normalized trade relations. When it became obvious that Iran was developing nuclear weapons, the Gulf States declared their pursuit of nuclear energy. This is fairly interpreted as a pursuit of nuclear weaponry, as a check against Iran. This is in keeping with historical regional conflict trends: Sunni versus Shiite, Secular versus Fundamentalist, Arab versus Iranian.

Putin's warning to the West from Iran is more for Russian domestic consumption. It costs Putin little to challenge the West (especially the U.S.), but helps his polls at home. At the end of the day, there would be much for Russia to gain by seeing Iran invaded and much to be risked by being called on a nuclear bluff. Russia is oil rich. Any instability in the Gulf will only make Russia richer.

things somewhat messed up

rubycodez

Thu Oct 18 13:46:53 -0700 2007

manage

I don't expect much love for Iran in the middle east and north africa, but Russia has huge business dealings with Iran with more planned.  And Russia is very concerned with what the caspian sea nations are doing and who is trying to schmooze some of them (like, the U.S.)

things somewhat messed up

Martin Blank

Thu Oct 18 19:32:03 -0700 2007

manage

Putin's not crazy about a potential Iranian bomb.  In public, he warns against military action and doesn't favor additional sanctions, but news organizations of varying stripes have reported that in private, he's not especially happy about the prospect of another nation with nuclear warheads.  Remember that many in Iran (as with many Islamic nations) don't like Russia's campaign in Chechnya, and while Russia can ignore protests from conventionally-armed nations, it's harder to ignore nuclear-armed nations with established, successful ballistic missile programs.

Putin's reported views seem to mirror those of Angela Merkel of Germany.  She has likewise said that military actions should not be used, but has apparently expressed privately that while she would protest, she would take little serious action.

things somewhat messed up

Erick Tyson von Mueller

Thu Oct 18 21:31:50 -0700 2007

manage

Iran has a large, educated, young, unemployed workforce. If Iran can develop energy security (unrefined oil does not guarantee energy security) before economic collapse, it will be a strong growth country. Tehran especially has a vibrant real estate market (I'm not joking). It makes sense to invest there and develop a presence with an eye toward the future. It also makes sense that Iran is a good target for a resurgent Russia's expansion. It's likely more valuable than Afghanistan will ever be. But Russia wins either way. If Iran is attacked, the price of oil spikes and probably does not return to pre-attack levels. If Iran is not attacked, Russia enjoys access to Iran's market. It's a good strategy for Russia.

things somewhat messed up

Charles E Hill

Thu Oct 18 22:04:38 -0700 2007

manage

Iran trusts Russia about as far as Iran can throw Russia, business dealings or not.  Russia has a very long history of invading Iran and carving off pieces.  The now ex-Soviet States of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Tajikistan and Kazakhstan were at one time, in whole or part, part of Iran/Persia.  The word "stan" is Persian (Farsi) for "province".

In January 1942 Britain and Russia signed an agreement with Iran to respect Iran's independence and to withdraw their troops within six months after the end of the war. In 1943 Tehran Conference U.S. reaffirmed this commitment. In 1945, the USSR refused to announce a timetable to leave Iran's northwestern provinces of East Azerbaijan and West Azerbaijan, where Soviet supported autonomy movements had developed.

There are still open disputes.

Iran is playing Russia, Russia is playing Iran and both of them know it.

things somewhat messed up

rubycodez

Fri Oct 19 06:58:14 -0700 2007

manage

and this is much different than the mutual histories and relationships of countries in the western world.....er, how?

things somewhat messed up

Charles E Hill

Fri Oct 19 07:05:41 -0700 2007

manage

It isn't.  I'm just pointing out that Iran doesn't really trust Russia so the idea of relying on them as a mutual defense partner is a bit of a stretch.

Dollar Meltdown

jpop32

Thu Oct 18 05:35:01 -0700 2007

manage

And there's more, turkey and iran maybe ganging up to hit the kurds,

Wha? Turkey and Iran? Where did you get that from? Iran has an interest in extending its influence over Shia parts of Iraq (principally in the south), but attacking Kurds in alliance with Turkey? Lay off whatever you've been smoking.

Dollar Meltdown

Dana Madsen

Thu Oct 18 07:15:08 -0700 2007

manage

The Kurds are concentrated in northern Iraq, but they have ethnic and historical ties to areas of Turkey and Iran.  The goal, of some of them, is an independent country for all Kurds.  This would need to take land from Iraq, Turkey, and Iran.  Iraq can't do much about it, Turkey is mad and ready to send in the army, and Iran is getting closer to Turkey's position but they know sending their army into northern Iraq to attack Kurdish rebels would draw American reprisals.  This is the why Turkey didn't support the invasion of Iraq in 2003, they knew it would eventually cause them more problems with the Kurds.

Quick google search to remind me of past news.

"The attacks are an ominous reminder that the emergence of an increasingly self-sufficient Kurdish region in northern Iraq could provoke reprisals or even invasions by Iran and Turkey"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/12/AR2007091202720.html