2

9/13/2009 3:58:15 PM

Quote :

"The article really doesn't make sense (at least the snippit posted). Production is down because of an excess supply? What does that mean? Do individual producers of opium really care about "total supply" or do they care about how much they can sell, at given price, for a given cost? I think the economically correct way to describe this is that demand for opium has unexpectedly dropped, which has resulted in stores of unsold opium and falling prices, which has led to reduced production. So it seems like a more accurate headline would be "Afgan Production Down Due to Drop in Demand""

I don't think demand is down. I think it is due to more Afghan producers getting into the opium growing business and thus saturating the market and during this growing season the farmers aren't able to get the lucrative prices and therefore are out of the game this year.

9/13/2009 3:58:41 PM

Quote :

"And therefore... what? No economic system guarantees economic progress."

No, but there is one system that supposedly is the best but is fraught with so many weaknesses that I'm ashamed to admit it's the one we have.

Quote :

"The only question is whether we stick with or adopt a system which usually produces economic progress, or adopt another system which almost never does"

We have a system that produces progress and then wipes it away rather quickly. I've lived in Germany and gone on extended work trips numerous times. I've had extensive talks with them about our economic system and their social system. I was a little bewildered to find out married couples with children doing the same job I did lived in what almost seemed like indentured servitude because of the high taxes and high cost of rent. But you know, they do the same shit I do. They buy gadgets and consume just like I do. They take vacations. They live on one of the best cities in Europe (Munich) and have a fan fucking fantastic time doing it. As best I can tell, they won't have (and don't have the potential to have) the same savings and retirement that I will...but this is predicated on one very important concept, that we haven't fucked ourselves for the next decade with the choice to bail out bankers who screwed the financial system.

Now, I know you libs are going to cry that this isn't the free market at work...bullshit. Money bought LESS REGULATION (you wanted that right?) and money bought short term interests in favor of long term sustainability. That's the capitalism we have. You can't really label it anything else.

9/13/2009 6:21:04 PM

Quote :

"Now, I know you libs are going to cry that this isn't the free market at work...bullshit. Money bought LESS REGULATION (you wanted that right?) and money bought short term interests in favor of long term sustainability. That's the capitalism we have. You can't really label it anything else."

Exactly what are you arguing, here? Simultaneously you implicitly admit the possibility of another system - one where we do not invite moral hazard by bailing out those who systemically took on too much risk, therefore allowing their failure to serve as a deterrent to future firms, meanwhile dismissing this out of hand and declaring that the completely messed-up system of state capitalism that we're stuck with is the only capitalism available.

This is the whole point of the complaint that this is not the free market at work. The free market at work means that you let loser firms fail.

One of the main problems that caused the bailout panic was the fact that we were completely inconsistent - we bail out Bear Stearns, we don't bail out Lehman. Suddenly, there is no logic whatsoever to the market - the rules change by the day. Even though bailing out both would be monumentally stupid, the folks who advocated that path have a point in that it would have ensured predictability in the market. On the other hand, not bailing out Bear Stearns would have also produced predictability (firms will be allowed to fail) and likely averted a panic.

Declaring that entities are "too big to fail" is how you get the state capitalism that now complain about. Ergo, the target of your ire is entirely inappropriate - ask yourself who was selling the mantra that certain firms were "too big to fail," and direct your rage appropriately.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 6:33 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2009 6:32:24 PM

Quote :

"Exactly what are you arguing, here? Simultaneously you implicitly admit the possibility of another system - one where we do not invite moral hazard by bailing out those who systemically took on too much risk, therefore allowing their failure to serve as a deterrent to future firms, meanwhile dismissing this out of hand and declaring that the completely messed-up system of state capitalism that we're stuck with is the only capitalism available"

It would be great...if you'd stop assigning positions and adding more to my argument than I put in there myself. I said no such thing about the only capitalism available.

NOT A GOD DAMN THING

I said it's the capitalism WE have. And it's here to stay...forever probably. The divide between upper and middle keeps growing and growing and growing. Politicians play based on what they think their constituents will vote on, if they fuck up, a new round of money gets injected into the next guy where he'll pretend to care about constituents, wash, rinse repeat. Politicians are capitalist too, they seek to maximize profit, and if this means giving those with the capital what they want, that is what they get.

That is the capitalism we have.

Every single one of my rants absolutely leave the door open to a better system, I know it exists. But we're not getting it anytime soon, and to talk about socialism like a bogeyman rather than talk about the extreme shortcomings of capitalism is just retarded, because like I pointed out, the economic systems you decry as vastly inferior are resulting in lifestyles drastically similar to our own.

Quote :

"This is the whole point of the complaint that this is not the free market at work. The free market at work means that you let loser firms fail. "

Wow, you went and did it anyway. No one needs a lesson the basics of the idea. What everyone does need a dose of is the nuance in the details. If that means excess profit directed at politicians gained favorable legislation then there was a whole host of free market 'wins' that got to that point where they ensured their capitalistic dominance. To ignore this is abjectly retarded. Now, go rant about government and how government intervention is getting in the way of free market, etc.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 7:44 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2009 7:42:52 PM

Quote :

"I said no such thing about the only capitalism available. NOT A GOD DAMN THING I said it's the capitalism WE have. And it's here to stay...forever probably."

And therefore the issue you're making of the objection is what, exactly? How about instead of acting like a raving lunatic you try - for once - to make a nuanced, well-reasoned response. Just once.

Meanwhile, you're pretty much saying "this is the capitalism we're stuck with" - as if it is fixed, immutable, and utterly incapable of being altered. In other words, as if there was no other option.

Christ, if you'd actually read what I wrote before going off, you'd actually find that I am not disagreeing with a substantial portion of your identification of the problem. But no, instead you have to rant and rave and beat your chest to let everyone know RAWR RAWR EVERYONE IS DUMBER THAN ME.

Quote :

"But we're not getting it anytime soon, and to talk about socialism like a bogeyman rather than talk about the extreme shortcomings of capitalism is just retarded, because like I pointed out, the economic systems you decry as vastly inferior are resulting in lifestyles drastically similar to our own."

Exactly what did I say in my post of socialism? Do find it for me, because it's otherwise fairly ironic for you to complain of me putting words into your mouth (words, which on face, are not far off from what you were saying in the first place) to then turn around and do exactly the same thing, only this time even more egregiously.

Quote :

"No one needs a lesson the basics of the idea. What everyone does need a dose of is the nuance in the details. If that means excess profit directed at politicians gained favorable legislation then there was a whole host of free market 'wins' that got to that point where they ensured their capitalistic dominance. To ignore this is abjectly retarded."

Wow, it's like you didn't even read the post at all. Which, given your record, wouldn't surprise me in the least.

I'd invite you to actually go back and actually read what I posted. Don't worry, I'll wait.

...

You ready? Because what I addressed specifically pertains to the other half of the problem. The freedom to operate on risk - the loose regulations you rant about money purchasing - are only half of the free market problem, and generally the ones that businesses will agitate for. The one that they will agitate against - the one that is no more fixed and immutable than the idea of to regulate or not to regulate - is how we respond to failure. The very idea that a firm is "too big to fail" has no place in the free market. Which might be why you'll notice I referred to what we have as state capitalism - privatized gains and socialized losses.

Further compounding this problem, and thus ultimately creating pressure to perform these interventions, is the inconsistency of policymakers. Bailing out one firm and not the next creates chaos, and calls for even bigger interventions. This was the point of my example that you so glibly decided to ignore. It is far better to have structured rules in place - and, in a true free market, this means setting the expectations up that no firm is big enough not to fail, and sticking to one's guns in the hard stretches.

The alternative is being consistent about bailouts - an option I find to be unpreferable, however if we are to do it then it is absolutely appropriate to regulate more tightly.

But the choice of whether to bail out or not to bail out is not some unchangable physical law. It is not an inherent feature of the system - it is explicitly a political phenomenon, which is why inconsistency in its application causes so much chaos.

Again, if it is somehow possible to control how much we regulate - and clearly, according to your assumptions, it is - then it also makes sense that failure conditions (to bail out or not) are also changeable. Clear, explicit rules from the outset prevent panic. And clear, explicit rules indicating to firms that there will not be bailed out can act as a check upon excessive risk-taking. I don't see how this is objectionable to you.

Quote :

"Now, go rant about government and how government intervention is getting in the way of free market, etc."

Why, when we can all be entertained about your sermons of how everybody is dumber than you? Or have you make up arguments for other people, then complain of it happening to you? That's your deal, right? Everyone is a brainless retard, except for you? Am I getting it here, or is there a bit more "nuance" that I'm missing?

9/13/2009 8:04:39 PM

Quote :

"AT IT IS BEST"

9/13/2009 8:13:56 PM

Quote :

"Why, when we can all be entertained about your sermons of how everybody is dumber than you? Or have you make up arguments for other people, then complain of it happening to you? That's your deal, right? Everyone is a brainless retard, except for you? Am I getting it here, or is there a bit more "nuance" that I'm missing?"

Oh the irony

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 8:46 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2009 8:45:35 PM

Wow, a broken image tag. A substantial contribution to the discussion, no doubt.

9/13/2009 8:46:11 PM

Not a broken image tag, numbnuts. More like Imageshack bans its images from appearing on thewolfweb.

9/13/2009 8:47:31 PM

Which makes it... non-functional. Or, in the common parlance, "broken."

Wow, we sure are in the presence of a brilliant one, here.

9/13/2009 8:49:12 PM

I guess you call images that show up to prevent hotlinking as broken image tags too. Which everyone knows it isn't. But let's not stop you from being an arrogant fuck.

9/13/2009 8:52:36 PM

Have a look in the mirror and get back to all of us about that one. You need to chill the fuck out.

9/13/2009 8:54:47 PM

You seem overly angry today. Why don't you go take a candle light bath and mellow.

[Edited on September 13, 2009 at 9:01 PM. Reason : .]

9/13/2009 9:01:06 PM

Is all of your trolling of the derivative variety?

9/13/2009 9:08:51 PM

You are one temper tantrum away from having an aneurysm. Flounce away, Flouncey.

9/13/2009 9:12:59 PM

Quote :

"But we're not getting it anytime soon, and to talk about socialism like a bogeyman rather than talk about the extreme shortcomings of capitalism is just retarded, because like I pointed out, the economic systems you decry as vastly inferior are resulting in lifestyles drastically similar to our own."

Fail Boat, I don't believe I would be much less happy living in much of Europe than I am in the United States. After-all, as you point out, the lifestyles are similar. Well, how can it be that a socialist system produces similar outcomes?

Simple: they would not. I know of no socialist countries in Europe. The last socialist country in Europe collapsed back in the 90s. What you find in Europe is what you find in America: free market economies with extensive welfare and regulatory states. You don't see the German government owning car factories and investment banks. You don't see the German government owning the postal system (privatized in 1995).

While it is true that your average German is far less wealthy than his American counterpart, that has nothing to do with socialism (as the country is actually more capitalist), and everything to do with heavy regulation of labor and capital markets (although there is a positive wealth effect due to the cheapness of land in most of America).

And imposing Germany's labor and capital market regulations on America would not improve income equality. Germany has less inequality because their society is less diverse both socially and geographically, as New Yorkers can never be a wealthy (PPP) as their fellow Americans due to their historical handicap. Also, Germany does not consist of America's high percentage of Mexican economic refugees.

9/14/2009 12:54:40 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/13/us/13water.html?_r=1

Mining companies use their financial muscle to get a state regulator fired, allowing them to dump toxins into the local water supply that apparently has been chemically burning people who bathe from the municipal supply in the region.

I guess this also represents a failure of gov. as well as the hand of the free market, but only a fool would argue for solely one or the other.

9/14/2009 1:12:07 AM

It sounds like they should sue their municipal water supplier. There are methods of removing toxic metals from water before you send it to people's homes.

If you live in the desert then it would be a breach of contract for your municipal water supplier to pump sand to your home instead of water. Well, if the local water is toxic, then they should fix that. Send the bill for the treatment plant to the mine owners attached to a lawsuit if you must. It is quite possible that society as a whole is better off with dirty ground water and coal, instead of somewhat clean water and no coal.

9/14/2009 9:22:13 AM

Quote :

"It sounds like they should sue their municipal water supplier"

the water isnt coming from a municipal source, its coming from groundwater.

Quote :

"It is quite possible that society as a whole is better off with dirty ground water and coal, instead of somewhat clean water and no coal. "

Tell that to the people of this community that will now die slow painful deaths due to cancer. Do you hear yourself? You sound like you have stock in a coal company.

9/14/2009 10:09:36 AM

Quote :

"It sounds like they should sue their municipal water supplier."

Sure, but the company's decision to knowingly dump toxic waste into the water was a violation of the private property rights of everyone who rightfully consumed that water. It is therefore their responsibility.

Quote :

"It is quite possible that society as a whole is better off with dirty ground water and coal, instead of somewhat clean water and no coal."

Completely irrelevant. Private property rights are private property rights. I have the right to be secure in myself and my possessions, I do not have the right to anyone else's health, welfare, or possessions. Society has no claim to my property, no matter how much my loss might benefit them.


I realize, that in practice, social wants at the expense of private property rights are limited by eminent domain, but the principle still stands.

9/14/2009 10:14:48 AM

Quote :

"Sure, but the company's decision to knowingly dump toxic waste into the water was a violation of the private property rights of everyone who rightfully consumed that water. It is therefore their responsibility."

It would be. But since the situation exists, it seems the courts have not found a way to enforce property rights in this instance. It could very well be that this is not one company's fault, as the article states there are dozens of mines in the area (possibly many dozens) and as far as the state environmental protection agency can tell, all of them are doing a good job of not polluting the water. Yet the water is clearly polluted, so what can we do given the situation where the best evidence says no one is at fault but shit has gone wrong. It seems the only solution is to either shut down all the mines or live with dirty water. It would be wrong to suggest the ladder is not a valid choice.

Quote :

"Tell that to the people of this community that will now die slow painful deaths due to cancer. Do you hear yourself? You sound like you have stock in a coal company."

Hence my assertion. It seems society has failed to protect the rights of these individuals and should try to make recompense. If they are on ground water, someone should help them get access to other water sources, be it municipal or installing a rain catch. Maybe portable water filtering equipment exists that they and their neighbors can share access to. If it is a rural area with lots of people, maybe it would be possible to start a water company to either pipe in or filter the water. I know it is a huge inconvenience, but unless they can figure out who is at fault and what can be done to fix it, life sometimes requires we make do with the options we have, none of which involve bathing the children in water that burns them.

But at some point you must help yourself too. These are not poor people. Maybe they should move closer to town so they can get on city water. Rain catching systems are affordable, although I know nothing about their rainfall patterns. Sometimes society imposes costs upon us and we are left with no choice but to pay them. Only a fool refuses to do so, sacrificing their child's health to avoid selling a house at a loss.

9/14/2009 11:56:08 AM

Turns out arsenic and heavy metal contamination is naturally occurring in many parts of the country, so there a large industry built up supplying filters and scrubbers to remove them from small water systems. They are not what I would call cheap, but considering what it does, "absurdly affordable" comes to mind. The literature claims it is self cleaning (requires a drain) and claims "Virtually Unlimited Life Expectancy". At the very least, it comes with a 10 year warranty. They own their own home, certainly they can afford a one-time expense of $1,215?

ArsenicMaster™ Whole House Arsenic Water Filtration System Sale Price: $1,215
http://www.equinox-products.com/arsenicmaster.htm
"For arsenic, lead, iron, sulfur/ hydrogen sulfide (H2S, rotten-egg odor), manganese, copper, cadmium, uranium."

9/14/2009 12:52:17 PM

^why are you trying so hard to defend these companies?

from the article

Quote :

"As required by state law, some of the companies had disclosed in reports to regulators that they were pumping into the ground illegal concentrations of chemicals — the same pollutants that flowed from residents’ taps. "

Its possible the pollution came from elsewhere, but you have 9 mining companies pumping pollutants into the groundwater, and now flowing out of the faucet, where previously it wasnt causing them any problems. Thats a pretty smoking gun IMO.


So your solution is for these people to go out and buy their own filtration system even though their only fault was to attempt to live next to these companies? While the companies continue to pump shit into the aquifer instead of properly disposing of waste (so that they can make a few million more)?


people before profits

9/14/2009 1:48:32 PM

I was not defending the companies in question. I was trying to change the subject to something more interesting than "externalities! Capitalism needs men with guns to arrest people or society suffers!"

I was operating under the assumption that they had sued and lost on the grounds that they could not prove fault. Otherwise, they don't need a change in the law, just use the laws that already exist to seek restitution in court. They are suing and should sue, use the jury award to buy a filtration system for everyone in the county affected. Problem solved.

9/14/2009 2:05:44 PM

http://consumerist.com/5361791/hyatts-in-boston-decide-to-outsource-housekeeping

Hyatt hotels tell employees to train new employees that are going to fill in for sick days, etc., then they fire the old employees ones the new ones are trained.

10/1/2009 10:35:53 AM

in other news, Alan Greenspan renounces pure capitalism and Ayn Rand.

10/1/2009 11:34:18 AM

http://moneywatch.bnet.com/economic-news/article/big-banks-sneaky-new-tricks/346188/

10/1/2009 3:50:19 PM

^^^ What does that have to do with capitalism? Is it your assertion that no Soviet Commissar ever mistreated a worker, such as by sending them to Siberia?

Managers exist in all economic systems, and those are just mean and, I suspect, stupid managers. If the old workers were earning far above market wages, what idiot gave them the raises when they did not deserve them? And what job security does the batch of new workers feel they have? Every last one of them is probably seeking alternative employment from day one. And who will train the new workers when the new ones quit to take their new skills to the hotel down the street to escape the constant fear of being fired?

^ Again, what does cheating banks have to do with capitalism? Is everyone forgetting communist Russia where in order to make the New Economic Policy (NEP) work, all banks were nationalized and all bank accounts were slashed in an effort to fight inflation. It worked, it is also why Russians to this day avoid keeping their money in the bank.

As it is, a $50 penalty for changing banks is not going to bankrupt anyone. Just get an account with a good bank which doesn't charge all these fees. I just used my overdraft last week to cover four charges totaling $148, cost me four cents. But my bank has no branches in my area, which is a hassle when I need to obtain a large amount of cash. With the great service offered by these expensive banks, someone must pay for it, so you pay for it with fees. If you don't want to pay for it with fees, then switch banks.

[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 5:45 PM. Reason : .,.]

10/1/2009 5:32:13 PM

Quote :

"^^^ What does that have to do with capitalism? Is it your assertion that no Soviet Commissar ever mistreated a worker, such as by sending them to Siberia?"

Oh look, it's the old they do it in other economic systems too, defense.

At least you know what you're going to get under socialist and communist systems. Well, I guess you know what you'll get with capitalism too. It's your job replaced by a cheaper worker and 6 months of UI and a promise of a better life. Rofl.

Quote :

"Again, what does cheating banks have to do with capitalism?"

What doesn't it have to do with capitalism? And I don't mean that Ayn Randian fantasy land capitalism we'll never see in our lifetimes and has barely ever existed in this country. If you like, we can just stop referring to it as capitalism because it really shakes up your world view. I'll make a new thread where I call it 'American Capitalism' and then you can just save your standard "government is the problem" responses for all of us and we can talk about the oligarch that continues to run the country and will continue to run the country until we die.



[Edited on October 1, 2009 at 5:52 PM. Reason : .]

10/1/2009 5:44:01 PM

Well, if there is a cheaper worker available which is just as good, then for the good of society you should be replaced.

10/1/2009 5:46:48 PM

http://www.forbes.com/2009/10/06/simmons-bankruptcy-bailout-banks-opinions-columnists-dan-gerstein.html

Quote :

"The problem is, as we have seen over and over again in recent months, that the rules that the elites play by are rigged in their favor. They get the reward; we--the workers, the average investors, the taxpayers--get the risk and the refuse. "

This guy makes a lot of points Im sure most have heard before but the above quote pretty much sums up how I feel our current system is, tipped in favor of the people that are already on top, so that they can stay there (which is un-american, IMO)

10/7/2009 9:47:10 AM

I agree. And therefore, we need to abolish fund raising limits. Only then can politicians not beholden to the current elites have a chance.

10/7/2009 3:20:55 PM

Quote :

"Interestingly, in a November 9, 2007, interview with Marty Beckerman of Reason, Taibbi actually described himself as "more of a libertarian than anything else." Unfortunately, in keeping with Rolling Stone's dominant line, Taibbi's attack on Goldman Sachs was quite antimarket. He coolly placed the blame for the US financial crisis on the shoulders of this lone company. However, he did manage to illuminate the bank's relationship with government regulators and the Federal Reserve. As the saying goes, "even a broken clock is right twice a day." Here's the danger though: The Rolling Stone audience is young and impressionable. Most already harbor the belief that the current economic crisis is the result of capitalism's failure. Now, I'm not going to delve into the ins and outs of Goldman Sachs or dissect Taibbi's "investigative journalism." But I feel it important to set the record straight in case one rogue 13-year-old decides to learn more about the situation with Goldman and happens to stumble upon Mises.org."

http://mises.org/story/3761

10/14/2009 11:54:38 AM

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/01/world/middleeast/01yemen.html?ref=global-home

Quote :

"Even as drought kills off Yemen’s crops, farmers in villages like this one are turning increasingly to a thirsty plant called qat, the leaves of which are chewed every day by most Yemeni men (and some women) for their mild narcotic effect. The farmers have little choice: qat is the only way to make a profit. ... The government now supplies water once every 45 days in some urban areas, and in much of the country there is no public water supply at all. Meanwhile, the market price of water has quadrupled in the past four years, pushing more and more people to drill illegally into rapidly receding aquifers."

This story to me represents the problem with "pure" capitalism. People are far too likely to pursue short-term entertainment and pleasure with their wallets than long-term survival. And there seems to be a tipping point where no market forces can turn things back without some assistance from the government.

11/1/2009 1:28:17 PM

With the information you have given, the story does not make sense. If there is a food shortage, why is only the price of qat going up?

The answer is given elsewhere in the article: qat is a local product, food grain is imported. I suspect qat will continue to grow without rain or irrigation, wheat will not. As such, since reality dictates this solution, the economy must transition to a new economic organization, presumably with Yemen becoming more like Hong Kong, another country incapable of feeding or watering itself. Regretfully, this is not possible given the political situation in the country. The only economic activity that can be consistently defended against the men with guns is agriculture and its zero capital investment. As such, you may be right in this instance: massive vampire state interventions that have looted everything in the country but dirt has left the country incapable of adapting to the most basic of market forces (a drought). As such, yes, more intervention is clearly necessary, in the form of massive and widespread airdropping of small arms into the countryside in hopes that arming the average Yemeni would provide a check on their corrupt state and lessen the effectiveness of the economic terrorism being waged against them.

A far worse drought devastated Australia for decades until recently, but no one starved and there was no social unrest; Australia's heartland just shifted to drought resistant economic activity, such as mining. Something the Yemeni presently cannot do, because their tools would quickly be looted.

11/1/2009 2:36:11 PM

^ the article states that farmers stopped farming wheat years ago because of cheaper foreign imports. They switched to qat, which is now depleting the water supply (and it's apparently also illegal to import qat in yemen). They can't grow wheat because it's not cost effective, and they shouldn't grow qat because it uses too much water. The best solution would be to allow qat imports while the farmers switch to some other crop which i'm assuming exists that uses up less water, but also is sellable locally as well as tradable.

On an unrelated issue:
http://post-gazette.com/pg/09303/1009500-100.stm

A judge has his rulings thrown out because it was found he was receiving kickbacks from a private prison for sending people there as their punishment.

[Edited on November 1, 2009 at 7:33 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2009 7:32:02 PM

So by your own interpretation the problem with pure capitalism is the government interference?

11/1/2009 8:10:11 PM

As lonesnark said, there's not enough information to say what's what.

But the problem in a general sense with "pure" capitalism is that death is sometimes the most stable option.

11/1/2009 8:17:20 PM

Well, in life it is the most stable and inevitable option. The fundamental problem of scarcity dominates life at every level and we're no exception. The rules of scarcity cannot be changed except by more efficient production. Redistribution doesn't solve anything.

11/1/2009 10:30:16 PM

No, I said no such thing. The problem in Yemen is easy to discern: as with most third world environments, the men with guns are ravaging the country. The issue you are bringing up is nothing more than a symptom of this serious problem (flea, meet Godzilla). And I gave the only credible solution I know of, which is arming the entire populace with small arms, preferably handguns, in hopes that the threat of resistance deters both current and future men with guns from further impoverishing the country.

As to your second point about the judge, to paraphrase 1337 b4k4, the problem with pure capitalism is corrupt government bureaucrats?

[Edited on November 2, 2009 at 2:48 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/2/2009 2:44:54 PM

^ you aren't suggesting a privatized judicial system are you?

And are you suggesting that the prison owner did nothing wrong?

But corruption exists everywhere, it's one of the reasons gov. exists in the first place. It's as naive to expect that enough people can put others before themselves as it is to think that market forces can moderate everything.

11/2/2009 3:12:03 PM

you aren't suggesting that a judge is part of the private sector, are you? How can you say that the judge being corrupt is a failing of pure capitalism. It's kind of a reinforcement. Unless, of course, you think that a gov't official in any way is a part of pure capitalism...

11/2/2009 7:15:44 PM

Well, let us see... In that example, someone (the government) stood up and proclaimed "judge, we will pay whenever you decide to imprison someone for whatever reason."

Now, yes, the judge was a criminal, but what about the situation allowed him to almost get away with it? It is said that people only spend their own money carefully. As such, since the judge's fellow government agents were spending third party (tax-payer) money to imprison third parties (the innocent), it is no wonder the money was spent poorly. To put it another way, the only people other than the defendant that had an incentive to avoid paying to imprison the innocent were taxpayers, none of which had enough of a stake to make them lift a finger to avoid the expense. Government accountants are loyal to the politicians, not taxpayers, and politicians can be expected to be happy with rising prison expenditure, even in violation of sentencing guidelines, when it engenders rising and perfectly legal campaign contributions from prison operators.

As such, yes, if the prison system was privatized somehow, such an eventuality would be less likely. If, for example, Bill Gates provided free law enforcement to the people of Seattle, then presumably Bill Gates would hire accountants loyal to him to track how his judges were spending his money. And while he would not be privy to the fact that the judge was taking bribes, it would be hard to bribe everyone involved to stop them from telling their boss, Bill Gates, that sentencing guidelines are being ignored to the effect of driving up costs.

To put it another way, there is more self-interested oversight when Bill Gates decides to fly to Europe than when the government puts a teenager in prison. It would be absurd for an aviation fuel seller to bribe a pilot to take the long way, but bribing a judge payed off in spades.

11/2/2009 11:10:46 PM

http://www.businessweek.com/the_thread/techbeat/archives/2009/11/ny_ag_cuomo_fil.html
Intel supposedly withheld "rebates" to OEMs that used AMD processors.


Assuming this is true, why does it matter? IF people did want Intel using its money to better its market position, they wouldn't buy Intel products would they?

^ did you mean in the prison system was privatized or the legal system? Because privatizing the prison system would only make that type of situation more likely, and it's pretty self-evident why the legal system shouldn't be privatized.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 2:09 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2009 2:06:04 PM

Why? Wardens have an incentive to have more inmates under their charge, whether they own the prison itself or not. This was not the first instance of prison corruption in history, after all. Prison wardens are well known for pocketing money, food, clothing, and contracts destined for inmates. Southern states used to have problems of inmates being paroled only to be found dead and buried on the prison grounds for many years while the state kept paying to incarcerate them. Corruption is an innate feature of mankind, the only difference between a privately run prison and a publicly run prison is someone cares when corruption strikes a private prison.

As for Intel: it may have breached a contract, which means it would pay damages. However, if we assume it had no such contract, then what is wrong with Intel granting a lower price to some customers and not others? What business is it of ours who Intel grants price cuts too? If Dell stops carrying AMD computers in order to receive the rebates, it is only risking its own future: people will buy from newegg or best buy or any number of other dealers which offer the selection demanded by customers.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 2:34 PM. Reason : .,.]

11/4/2009 2:31:02 PM

Pretty good article about the inherent inefficiencies of the bureaucracy:

Quote :

"During my 15-odd years working in municipal government, I often felt like an undercover agent infiltrating the mob. It became increasingly clear that my belief system and that of the bureaucracy were opposed. The bureaucratic "mob" kept pressuring me to do things contrary to my free-market principals. But like a good agent, I always exerted enough influence to achieve outcomes beneficial to the public interest. Finally, my assignment came to an end. Nevertheless, my time spent inside the bureaucracy was invaluable. I witnessed firsthand not only the pitfalls of government regulation, but also the inefficiencies inherent in bureaucratic institutions themselves. I left with a clear understanding of how the bureaucracy encumbers our system of free-market capitalism. Read the full debriefing below for a personal view inside bureaucracy."

http://mises.org/daily/3819

11/11/2009 9:59:40 AM

You mean a pretty childish article about a guy who makes a bunch of overly simplistic formulations about bureaucracy that suit his world-view, adding straw-men where necessary? There is nothing inherently good about "free-market principals". Roll your eyes at these gems:

Quote :

"The Obama Administration has appointed more tsars in 6 months than controlled the Kremlin in 200 years."

Quote :

"I once gave a speech on the market-stabilizing role of the speculator to a bureaucratic audience that seemed in a state of shock. They could not believe that a speculator could have any positive role in society. To them, the words "speculator," "capitalist," and "capital" convey only negatives."

Quote :

"Conversely, the words "government," "regulations," and "bureaucracy" convey only positives. In the bureaucratic mind, there is a misguided belief that society must be protected against the selfish interest of the capitalist. They fail to understand that it is the capitalist — through his taxes — who pays their salaries!"

Quote :

"As a student of the social sciences, I can attest to the left-wing brainwashing that goes on in our institutions of higher learning — especially in the highly coveted classrooms of the Ivy League. "

11/11/2009 11:01:15 AM

Quote :

"There is nothing inherently good about "free-market principals"."

There's nothing "inherently good" about anything. Goodness is a human concept. Austrian economics says that human behavior is impossible to predict, at least on a macro level, with any accuracy. While "mainstream" economics attempts to look at values and predict outcomes, it will never be able to correctly model the economy because they can't account for seemingly irrational human responses. Value is not a static thing; it varies depending on the person buying the thing of supposed value. The free market allows the desires of people to determine prices, rather than some arbitrary central planner.

[Edited on November 11, 2009 at 11:41 AM. Reason : ]

11/11/2009 11:18:58 AM

^^ Other than the Obama statement, the rest seems entirely possible to state given first hand knowledge, which he claims to have.

11/11/2009 11:33:59 AM