No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying people who live on the coast will pay more for insurance instead of expecting all of us to pay for them. Imagine a row of $50 million dollar mansions on the coast. Imagine these houses are destroyed every 10 years and rebuild brand new each decade. The millionaire owners should all be paying a very high insurance rate. Thanks to the government they get cheap insurance and instead YOU pay more. Either because your insurance isn't reduced or by losing out on services who money is wasted rebuilding millionaires mansions. It's really quite simple - Private Insurance companies compete for this lucrative business and they will come up with the ideal price for insurance on houses on the coast. As it is now - Everyone else is paying (subsidizing). For god sakes, how much MORE do we need to give to the 1%!?!? That is not what happened. What happened is the first in line bought as much gas as they could fit in their tanks and turned right around and sold it to the people at the back of the line.] This IS what happened. It's a fact. As in F.A.C.T. If the gas stations would have been allowed to raise the price, everyone would have had a least some gas. As it was, the deliveries themselves stopped and so many went without. Why deliver when there's no price incentive? Don't blame the 'greedy' gas station owner, it was the government who left people stuck with no fuel by preventing gas prices from rising by claiming there was "Price Gouging". At the end of the day most people didn't get the fuel they needed. Everyone just blames the gas station owner. A few people, first in line, made a quick buck on the black market selling gas at $20 a gallon. You don't NEED State run courts. Lots of companies use private arbitration. It's actually quite common. Pollution can be traced to the source and that person sued. I'm not sure of your point here? It's be the exact same as now only better - as it is now the government can simply pass a law that says you can't sue even if your land is polluted. Hell, they can take your land if they want to and give you what they see as a fair price. At least this way you'd have your day in a court by jury. Maybe you're right. That's called Minarchism it's what Ann Rand was writing about. You just *gasp* inadvertently came to the same conclusion as Ann Rand Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Maybe, maybe not. But you still need a court system to sue anyone. As far as people building on the coast, lots of economic activity is generated by our coasts. I agree that we have to rethink building in some locations (land use codes, another gov benefit), but another thing to consider is government efforts to rebuild dunes and wetland areas, which proved to save certain areas from the worst aspects of erosion. What we pay for is saving people from death and hardship after they have exercised their freedom to invest and live where they wish (within reason). Not every problem can be solved by arbitration, that takes some cooperation between parties and they aren't always amenable to that. As far as Minarchism, that isn't anything like what I suggested. I think that left to our own devices, we would eventually recreate the exact system we have now. Or at least need it.
No it can't. Nor can you determine which pollutant killed a child with COPD. (And of course in a libertarian system you have to wait until they are dead to even try.)
Negative inflation is a recession. Prolonged and severe recessions are depressions, just as inflation is traditionally defined as “too many dollars chasing too few goods” deflation is typically defined as too few dollars chasing too many goods”. Too few dollars means people don’t have the money needed to purchase goods and services, that means economic contraction. “In economics, a depression is a sustained, long-term downturn in economic activity in one or more economies. It is a more severe downturn than a recession, which is seen by some economists as part of the modern business cycle.” - Wikipedia “In both recessions and expansions, brief reversals in economic activity may occur-a recession may include a short period of expansion followed by further decline; an expansion may include a short period of contraction followed by further growth. The Committee applies its judgment based on the above definitions of recessions and expansions and has no fixed rule to determine whether a contraction is only a short interruption of an expansion, or an expansion is only a short interruption of a contraction. The most recent example of such a judgment that was less than obvious was in 1980-1982, when the Committee determined that the contraction that began in 1981 was not a continuation of the one that began in 1980, but rather a separate full recession.” - National Bureau of Economic Research “Considered by some economists to be a rare and extreme form of recession, a depression is characterized by its length; by abnormally large increases in unemployment; falls in the availability of credit, often due to some kind of banking or financial crisis; shrinking output as buyers dry up and suppliers cut back on production and investment; large number of bankruptcies including sovereign debt defaults; significantly reduced amounts of trade and commerce, especially international; as well as highly volatile relative currency value fluctuations, most often due to devaluations. Price deflation, financial crises and bank failures are also common elements of a depression that are not normally a part of a recession.” - Wikipedia Wrong again. If you would have paid attention and counted the number of depressions in your reference you would have found 10 depressions/panics before the creation of the Federal Reserve, one depression with the Federal Reserve and no depressions since the adoption of Keynesian economic policies. We have had recessions, but a recession is not a depression unless it is prolonged and severe. “The National Bureau of Economic Research dates recessions on a monthly basis back to 1854; according to their chronology, from 1854 to 1919, there were 16 cycles. The average recession lasted 22 months, and the average expansion 27. From 1919 to 1945, there were six cycles; recessions lasted an average 18 months and expansions for 35. From 1945 to 2001, and 10 cycles, recessions lasted an average 10 months and expansions an average of 57 months.[5] This has prompted some economists to declare that the business cycle has become less severe.[7] Factors that may have contributed to this moderation include the creation of a central bank and lender of last resort, like the Federal Reserve System in 1913, the establishment of deposit insurance in the form of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation in 1933, increased regulation of the banking sector, the adoption of interventionist Keynesian economics, and the increase in automatic stabilizers in the form of government programs (unemployment insurance, social security, and later Medicare and Medicaid). See Post-World War II economic expansion for further discussion.” - Wikipedia I didn't see any reference to that magical oil you have been referencing. “ You obviously were not paying much attention to your reference material. Because they don’t say what you think they say. Additionally, you were plagiarizing Wikipedia. Instead of copying and pasting mindlessly, your time would be better spent if you had read and understood your source material. A business cycle is not a depression. If you know what you are doing, there is nothing tricky about this material. My “stance” is empiricism. And I didn’t call you a religious fanatic. I will repeat what I said for your edification again. I said, I would not expect you to change your stated “beliefs” about economics any more than I would expect a religious fanatic to change their beliefs. That is not calling you a religious fanatic. And if you cannot see the difference, well then I feel sorry for you. You will never understand many things including economics. What I “preach” is mainstream economics. Contrast that with your rather bizarre notions about magical commodities. You have not been able to explain any of your bizarre notions. Instead, you create straw man arguments and obfuscate. A few charts may not cut it for you. But most people with an open mind and of average intelligence can understand them. Perhaps you need much more education, more education and patience than I can afford or want to provide. Perhaps a good macroeconomics class at a junior college might be of some benefit to you. I don’t have an economic ideology. Mainstream economics and empiricism cuts it for me. If you understood what you read, which you didn’t, you would have understood that fewer business cycles translates to longer periods of prosperity. You would have noticed the longer periods of expansion and the shorter periods of economic contraction. Please see and read previous Wikipedia reference. Well where is your proof? We didn’t have prosperity before oil? There have been business cycles before Keynesianism and after Keynesianism. There will always be business cycles. What has changed, per previous references, is that there have been fewer business cycles because economic expansions have been longer and recessions have been fewer and shorter in duration since the adoption of Keynesian economic policies and the creation of the modern Federal Reserve. That is not what I asked you to do. I will repeat myself yet again for your edification. You proffered the notion that it was not Keynesian economics or the Federal Reserve that was responsible for the post-Keynesian prolonged period of prosperity. Instead you said cheap oil was responsible. Then I pointed out that oil has not been cheap and yet the economy has continued to grow – pointing out oil prices were cheap during The Great Depression and oil prices and the existence of oil as a commercial commodity did stop The Great Depression nor did it bring us out of The Great Depression. And I have repeatedly asked you to explain the basis for that belief that oil has some magical property that can account for changes in the business cycle. And you have repeatedly refused to explain your notion. I have given you the common sense condensed explanation as to how Keynesian economics and the Federal Reserve act to moderate the economy and foment economic growth. You have not done the same with these magical economic properties you think are inherent in oil. There were many important commodities both before and after the introduction of Keynesian economics and the Federal Reserve. Those commodities didn’t change the business cycle before the Keynesianism and the Federal Reserve, so why should they after the advent of Keynesianism and the Federal Reserve? So you think main steam economics is “preaching”. I think that sums up your lack of subject matter knowledge quite nicely. I have offered charts, data and references to support my commentary which is more than you have done my friend. If you think oil has played a “bigger part in generating prosperity than monetary policy”, then explain it. Prove it – something you have yet to do. But this iteration of that claim is a deviation from your original position which was that oil and not Keynesian economic policy and The Federal Reserve was responsible for observed post-Keynesian changes in the business cycle.
Hi Michael. Just a couple of inconvenient facts you omit from your one-eyed collection of 'truths according to Michael'. Just for example... If everyone was individually (not collectively via a taxation-funded state system) responsible for their own security and safekeeping of valuables and money, it would require almost all your waking time (and sleeping time too!) to carry out the necessary vigilance/protection/recovery etc when some other 'anarchist' decides he wants to take to your little 'paradise' and makes it his own. Who ya gonna call? A militia who charges you a 'fee' for 'protection' (and tax by another name) and who may easily rob you and kill you because there is no 'authority' to license and punish them for not doing the job as a govt police force does with more resources and stability/accountability? And how are you going to conduct INTERNATIONAL business and commerce and travel if you have no govt-backed safeguards for legal and contractual and patent/treaty rights/recourse etc? Are you going to hire a small army and invade the other country becaus you were robbed/scammed by one of their citicens/organisations? How much (taxation by another name) would it cost you to individually set up and conduct affairs internationally AND within the counttry you deny being part of? And as for the rich being 'hard done by' the system, you have it all arse-about. The rich individuals/groups/corporations pay LESS tax as a percentage because they have 'loopholes' and 'scams' which they can afford to pay for and that is not available to poorer folk on the minimum wage. Also, the richer the 'deposit' in banks, the proportionally GREATER the interest they get compared to the minuscule amounts us poorer folk can deposit. Mate, it is your much-vaunted 'private/indivudual/rich types that get away with murder economically and politically and legally. THAT is the problem/inequality from which stems all the ills which these scammers and exploiters and criminals visit onto a country on a massive scale against which any problems due to 'poor people' pales into insignificance. When was the last time a poor person stole billions/trillions from a society and pretended it was all the fault of poor people whose ranks these scammers and exploiters increased over the last few years and which only now will we be able to slowly correct with no thanks to the ones who gave us the same 'unfettered capitalism' and exploitation of society/law which is good when it suits them but is bad when it suits the poorer citizen? Wake up to youself before you actually start believing the one-eyed tripe you've been selectively collecting while ignoring the bigger picture. You've drunk the 'cool aid' sold by the same scammers and criminals who invest overseas and offshore jobs and sabotage the national economy/recovery while they make people jobless and homeless in the name of 'profit' and 'efficiency' which is all to do with THIR profit and efficient EVASION of tax and responsibility which others without the means cannot escape because of the system which is being destroyed by your 'heroes' who wanted to get back into power so they could escape PROSECUTION (I predict that not too long from now Mr Romney and his Bain and other pals will be brought before a congressional committee etc to explain where the profits came from and where they are going now). Good luck to you and your 'heroes', mate, you'll both need it there in your very own "STATE....of denial"!
Yes, pollution can be pin pointed to exactly who is polluting. If you can not determine which pollutant killed a child with COPD then it really doesn't matter which system you're talking about, you just said, it can not be determined. Therefor nothing can be done. Right now there's morphological changes occurring in the human species - most likely due to chemicals we produce and consume. But, it's not known which chemicals are causing some of the changes and so they continue to occur in fetuses........ I just thought I'd point out that this isn't really an argument. More or less a statement of fact. What's This beloved Government doing about it? Not much. Sometimes they even do the opposite! GMO frankenfish is all good. Raw organic milk - jail time suckers. And seeing as in the government takes the lion's share of the public's production - there really are not many private organizations left that can do anything now. Lucky us huh?
You could pay for security - people do it all the time. Malls often have private security. Many companies have private security. Many businesses conduct business without any use of government force. Once a cheater is found they're usually excluded from conducting trade. Do you get some cheaters now and again? Sure, but not often. I didn't say the rich were being undone. If anything I am in agreement. The rich use the government to screw us over. Which you will never escapes so long as you are forced to keep your labor in the rich's currency. They can, at the drop of a finger on a keyboard - wipe out you entire life times worth of savings. And they actually are doing this by the way. This is somewhat of a rant. You do understand that with a free-market trade BOTH people gain don't you? That's the whole thing about trading voluntarily. You know, it sort of built this little thing called "society". As for the banks screwing over the poor - yes, I agree. I don't think the banks should have been bailed out. I don't think the people who bought homes they couldnt' afford should be given a pass either. The banks should renegotiate their loans and/or go bankrupt and the homeowners should default, make a new loan agreement or also go bankrupt. As it is, your beloved government saved the wealthiest and screwed over the poorest. Again, this is a rant. I said I was in favor of NO income taxes and community based money. That way it really doesn't matter what Bain does or does not do. And you're going to soon find out who your beloved Government really works for when they sell our the next generation's labor through 30 year bonds and send what's left off to die in a war against Iran or some other country.
So the net net is that we agree: it's not THE govt per se at fault, it is the PEOPLE we put IN govt and the crooks/rich they 'front' for that are the problem. Great. So stop talking as if it is THE govt that is the problem. It is the crooks/rich and front men we put IN govt that is the problem. Which is why we (all the globe) are currently in a 'transition' period (including China!) from old ideologies/religions and cold-war satellite states and policies as we speak! That Obama won the election proves that this transition IS possible, and would proceed faster and more smoothly if the crooks and rich were not so obstructionist and sabotaging every reasonable new measure to minimize loopholes, ignorance and criminality that is currently exploited by the rich and crooked who gave us the latest taste of the 'unfettered capitalism' which is just as stupid/criminal a 'philosophy/scam' as 'unfettered communism'. That is why 'socialism' is here to stay: we've tried both the 'unfettered' capitalism and communism; now democracy is what works (with all its faults it's better than the extreme alternatives!). There is NO 'free market' without rules which can be enforced impartially. Any 'private' monopoly position which involves unfair ascendancy over the consumer is inevitably exploitative and destructive to society as a whole in the long run. Also, China's economy of scale in many areas is an advantage (like in technical/science graduates; consumer base for domestic product which can be produced cheaper because of unit cost reduction from greater scale-numbers mass production. But don't forget, China and most of the developing countries are IN TRANSITION politically and economically etc etc, so will take a little while for any advantages and disadvantages in trade/interactions with other countries to show up fully. Premature assessments/conclusions either way are misleading, especially if the 'culture' and 'politics' and 'standard of living' etc etc are 'apples and oranges' comparisons with other states/continents/cultures etc. Good luck to us all in this transition from ignorance and greed to social co-operation for the good of all, without the past ideological/economic 'booms and busts' which 'unfettered capitalism/communism' gave us in recent times! Cheers!
In the case of political elections it should NOT be equal. Instead of three wolves and a sheep we have three stupid ignorant voters versus one intelligent voter. I remember in the 2008 race Howard Stern sent a camera crew to Harlem to interview black voters about why they were voting for Obama. Except the interviewers presented McCain's policies as if they were Obama's, and lo and behold almost everyone they talked to fell for it...hook, line and sinker. Almost NONE of these people knew anything about Obama's platform, but were nevertheless voting for 'the black guy'. You would likely get the same response in some southern white trash saloon with a reverse scenario. If there was ever a case for requiring aptitude tests for voting rights...that was it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b5p3OB6roAg http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ&feature=related
