This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
The Great Flaw in the Free Trade Theory And Other Vain Beliefs, Hoaxes, and Follies
As always, when Jesse discusses economic theory and politics, he clearly and concisely explains why the currently popular mind-numbing theories haven't worked, and will not work. The time spent debating the existing models could be better spent constructing a new vision of how society can best be served by the government and the financial system - not the other way around. - Ilene
The Great Flaw in the Free Trade Theory And Other Vain Beliefs, Hoaxes, and Follies
Courtesy of Jesse's Cafe Americain
There are several economic models and political memes that rely on an underlying belief in the natural efficiency and goodness of 'free trade' and 'efficient markets.' One can question whether these ideas promoted certain behaviours, or if certain parties promoted these theories to serve as justification for their policy objectives.
Whatever the case may be, let's take a look at the theories that seem to underpin the virtue of 'free trade,' meaning international commerce with very light national regulations and a centralized semi-autonomous authority as arbiter.
One of the theories in favor of free trade is the idea of comparative advantage, that is, that one country might have a natural advantage which they can exploit for their own benefit and the general benefit of the world. I am sure we all learned this in business school. I myself was quite a fan of Michael Porter in my day.
This theory is a universalisation of the idea that the naturally gifted pottery maker, for example, has an inherent talent that can be exploited, and can create and exchange pots for food, let's say, from a farmer who has the advantage of owning suitable farm land and has the talent and tools to exploit it.
Makes common sense does it? Everyone does what they do best, and through the free exchange of products the aggregate good is increased.
But the fallacy that is repeated over and over by the non-scientific thinker (like too many economists and politicians for example) is that one can extend things that might make sense anecdotally into general principles writ large on the face real world, or more properly OVER the face of the real world, that at the end have little real fundamental connection with reality.
This was Mandelbrot's great criticism of the neo-liberal school of economics, notably the Chicago School, for example. Their broad assumptions crushed the reality out of the math, and the application of their theory made the markets inherently unstable by miscalculating the risks which were allowed to grow to enormous levels, and then crash at the under-expected event, colloquially known as 'a black swan.'
There is some validity to this. Some nations, for example, are blessed with great natural resources such as coal and oil, and they can sell these items to other countries and regions in exchange for items like food, for example.
But like most efficiency arguments, most notably the efficient market hypothesis, these ripples in distribution or market anomalies are quickly exhausted, and in the classic impetus and peril of successful capitalism, the players start to create monopolies and other artificial advantages, such as frauds, which they can exploit more fully.
So for example, a nation such as China can devalue its currency substantially in the 1990's against the world's reserve currency, and thereby set up a set of artificial import barriers and export subsidies, simply by manipulating their currency.
By the way, this is basic math. There are plenty of people who were denying it, and most of them stood to benefit from this charade. But it is true. Anyone who travels internationally and changes money understands it.
The underlying basis of the currency wars is the ability to artificially manipulate one's currency, or even establish a pseudo-monopoly, for the advantage of one to the disadvantage of the others.
There are other methods to accomplish this and they are usually lumped under the title of industrial policy or mercantilism. A country has a set of laws and regulations that foster a certain stance towards issues such as worker's rights, environmentalism, savings and consumption, wealth distribution and even human rights.
The more trade becomes independent of public policy and regulation, the greater the movement of all countries to the least common denominator of the broader policy stances of the mercantilist nations.
In a very real sense, if you control the issuance and terms of money, you care not who makes the laws locally. And the exchange of trade mechanism is a subset of the control of a medium of exchange, which is the trade system, both international and domestic, the who and how people can buy or sell.
This principle seems to be the basis of the inclusion of gold and silver in the money system essays written by my friend Hugo Salinas-Price, and the age old understanding of the balancing mechanism of a harder standard of exchange to manage the tendencies of various participants to 'cheat.'
Anyone who believes that believes that markets and society do not require clear laws and impartial referees because people are naturally inclined to know and do the 'right thing' has obviously never driven on a modern American freeway.
If, for example, we were in a gold standard system for international trade, and the governance had allowed China and its multinational capitalist friends to game the system as they are doing now, eventually the flow of gold from the US to China would compel the US to devalue its currency against the Yuan, and thereby persuade China to release more of its reserves as gold back into the system by purchasing other things. If they used it to buy US debt for example, the dollar would continue to devalue in a cycle which would hamper and ultimately defeat the currency mercantilism.
It would have also restrained the US from manipulating the world by 'owning' the world's reserve currency and the 'exorbitant privilege' therein. It would have curtailed unfunded wars, and the exporting of jobs and production in favor of a 'service economy' that consists largely of pushing the reserve currency around the plate, and skimming the greatest portion for an elite group of policy leaders. No standard is perfect, and there are ways to subvert some external standard like gold, but it is more difficult to do, and it is more easily seen and exposed if the standard is resolute and robust.
We see a similar principle in action in the theory supporting efficient markets. On paper they sound good, but they are deeply flawed because of the nature of the assumptions they make about people and their rationality and selflessness.
As most gardeners can tell you, there is rarely such a thing as a naturally beautiful and weed free garden, especially the ones that look 'natural.' It takes a great deal of forethought, adjustment, and continual work to make anything sustainable in this world of ours. And so it is with markets, both local and international.
There are those, like former Fed Chairman Greenspan, who argue that the fiat regime of the Federal Reserve works if the Fed 'acts like a gold standard,' that is, with an unapproachable virtue. A similar theory underpins the World Trade Organization's function in international trade. But like all human systems, they tend to fall to the great truth observed by Lord Action some years ago, that "where you have the concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control. History has proven that."
I am not promoting a gold standard per se and understand the problems inherent with it, and do not wish to discuss that here.
But what I am attempting to do is expose some of the fallacies of the zombie economic theories that have led the world to the place where it is today, with too much discretionary power concentrated in too few hands, with a propensity to act in secret and with an excess of latitude behind the cover of those artificial constructs known as 'corporations.'
This notion that government and regulation is the problem is true only to the extent that government has become weakened and corrupted by gross abuses. Effective government takes planning, continual hard work, and the adjustment of renewal and reform.
Human constructs, if not continually managed and repaired and occasionally renewed, tend inevitably into disruption, dysfunctionality, and corruption.
To say, let's just get rid of it and things will somehow become naturally good is to attempt to build a castle in the clouds. It will not and has never worked to promote a harmonious and productive society on a large scale, ever, in all of human history. It is the law of the jungle. But it has its continual appeal to sociopaths, misfits, the naive, the frustrated, and psychopaths.
It is a tool of the false dialectic of extremes, that argues that the choice is between no government and bad government, and that if government is not perfect it is inherently evil. Because they are driven to extremes, those who argue this cannot see the great middle ground, of an imperfect government that nevertheless is capable of maintaining justice and order within the context of freedom. Failure is only certain at the extremes, of authoritarianism and anarchy, when by two different paths one turns society over to the wolves.
The longer this artificial construct of natural goodness and perfect rationality is maintained, the greater the forces against it will build, until countries and nations explode into revolution and wars, as a consequence of folly.
The model in my forecast says that meaningful reform to the status quo will not be readily accepted by the power elite. They will promote a 'new normal' which will span a leisurely 'five to ten years' for economic recovery, while they are comfortably standing above it all on other people's necks. The ability to set oneself aside and apart, as separate and above, from the rest of humanity is served in many ways and by many things. It is a dangerous delusion to feel naturally privileged for whatever reason. It can only be maintained through power, and power is a deadly narcotic.
We can be thankful that other crackpot theories have not become mainstream, such as eugenics, or the marginalizing and then disposal of the weak, the disabled, and the different to serve the economic advancement of the state. Or groupthink, and profound belief in national or racial exceptionalism that tends to lead groups to quick utilitarian solutions and Pyrrhic ends. So there is some room for optimism.
Change may not come until the powerful are standing in ashes, and therein lies a tragedy yet to unfold. Let us work on with hope that reform comes well before then.
»
- ilene's blog
- 5043 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
And, anarchism absolutely favors voluntary associations. It also is MOST clearly in line with nature in that its lack of coercion PROMOTES diversity, which, as we know, is the spice of life [real law of nature].
Again, for those who need a refresher on fundamentals (before getting all carried away and missing the forest through the trees):
- BIG = FAIL
- Force = FAIL
- Concentration of power = FAIL
Will a lack of "govt" mean there won't be tyrants? No, but I highly doubt that we'd see weapons of mass destruction (which are ONLY nukes, which have ONLY been employed by the world's STANDARD democracy/republic [and back in the good old days] - the US).
You're right about diversity. I think it's bizarre that we live in a world where some would encourage the acceptance of gay marriage (for example) but fight tooth and nail against anyone who suggests that they'd prefer to invest their own money rather than be forced into social security.
The only kinds of diversity we are permitted are those that don't effect the government's standing or its bottom line.
Maybe because it didn't confirm your bias?
Bet you hate :
Unions
Lawyers
Government
ACLU
Leftists
Liberals
etc
Anyone with the desire or ability to protect the peasantry from the nobility
None of the above has ever protected me from nobility.
All those listed have caused me nothing but grief
And they always will.
The left may have the desire but they don't have the ability.
Nobility only exist by the power of government.
Go look up the word aristocracy. Our past, and if we're not careful future.
Thanks for your speculations about me.
Now, did you want to refute something that I wrote?
Anytime.
I actually don't have a problem with most of what you wrote, except that it's ideological to the point of uselessness. We have to work with what we have. The first step is to lose our precious ideologies. Then we can address things in the actual real world.
The first step is to lose our precious ideologies. Then we can address things in the actual real world.
That is a potentially interesting ideology, though it obviously has self-contradictory potential too. Have you ever seen it work in the actual real world?
BZZZT - debate FAIL! You were challenged and are clearly unable to present any meaningful arguments (relying, instead, to resort to ad hominem attacks).
Those looking to protect the status quo (or are unable to grasp something outside of their existing knowledge base) resort to such dismissals as "ideological." Sorry, but it's called looking at the root/fundamentals, and for those who don't have a big enough pair (feel threatened) by such introspection, well, good luck!
Not to be defensive, but the comments in this thread are jumbled, some are missing, and a lot of context has been lost.
But I was being challenged to refute the words he wrote, which I did not substantially disagree with. I felt the comment was itself a distraction from the actual subject at hand, and highly partisan.
It was intended to point that out.
You might want to look at your own posts when you go around saying "ad homminem"
I have no problem discussing fundementals. In fact, I fucking love it. What the "government is the root of all evil" crowd fails to understand is that there are other concentrations of power, now more powerful than the government, who now effectively govern. Think revolving door. I am guessing that if we each got rid of a little rhetorical bagage that we might find ourselves on the same side of the fence. but that is how divide and conquer works
We have to work with what we have.
My condolences to you and your family.
+2
Limited government was the central tenet of the Constitution.
The ironic thing is that they forgot to include the enforcement mechanism of judicial review, so they infered it, and then used that review to throw out the rest of the Constitution.
I don't think you and TM are that far in disagreement. The problem is the USG has no limits at all, and is bought. The problems are inseparable.
Here are two truths: (1) No government "system" from anarchy to socialism is perfect... because any level of administration is done by humans and humans are not perfect & (2) the goal of my human existence is, above all, to be happy.
A model of how my striving for my own happiness intersects & interacts with your striving for happiness is the basis upon which our society is formed. It's not formed based solely on coming up with a single plan that everyone has to live with by force to "supposedly" most efficiently develop, manufacture and distribute resources. How I may acquire stuff I need & want more easily and with less time & effort is certainly in my interest... but, overall, I may be a lot happier with less stuff but with (1) more freedom to make my own decisions (even if you don't like them), (2) less burden to comply with administration of a system & (3) less tacit consent for tons of things I abhor done on my behalf (war, the state imposing morality on others, throwing people in prison for dumb things, subsidizing risk).
Anarchy is not a system of government but rather the absence of government and the recognition of the sovereignty of the individual. Imperfect individuals are far less dangerous when their right to make or enforce decisions applies only to their own affairs and not to the affairs of others. I admit to being far from perfect myself and I can live with my neighbors although they are imperfect. But imperfect legislators and regulators create a world of hurt. Where there is government there is no justice as no man has the right to use force against another man who has done him no wrong.
natural law is not ours to accept or reject. it just is. our choice is whether we agree to live in a society that imposes other law on top of it.
But the choice to accept compulsory regulation would have to originate with the voluntary acceptance of that system by each and every individual involved. Otherwise natural law is contravened.
Nobody ever asked me if I wanted to be in the "safety net."
Happiness.......it's 'transitory'
what makes you happy today might be transitory. whatever that is, it is something someone else cannot define for you... no matter how smart or noble.
So I read this GREAT Post that has stuck with me.. in spite of my readers digest mentality.
the last time I read something here that stuck with me / moved me was.. forgive my regurgitating this thought improperly (to the original poster).
There can be no us or them.. only when we are them..
that abortion of a mis-quote was in reference to educating the masses.. only after everyone is educated will we ALL be better off.
Back to this GREAT POST that got my ADD attention to settle down..
The description of right verses left.. can be described one way.. throughout history.
The Right Looks at the World from a Top Down Perspective.
The Left Looks at the World from a Bottom Up Perspective.
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/obama-implementing-plans-war-throug...
***** "If you want a clear logical definition of what differentiates 'right wing' thinking from 'left wing' thinking I would say that it lies in the confrontation of 'top down logic' and 'bottom up logic'; the French revolution and the American revolution incarnated the triumph of the latter in their declaration of human rights; the corner stone of 'left' logic." ******
Which takes us back to.. People Not! Corporations or Government should have the Power.
of course as much as Most of us here will Love the idea of this.. the majority of Citizens in the United States are NOT! Capable of caring for themselves let alone comprehending what is truly Good v. Bad for them. Thusly! we have a Two Party System that accepts more money from the Interests of Foreign Countries more so than ALL the Big Brand Name Wall Street Banks!
The Lobby Owns Our Government!
"We the People" have allowed the Government to Sell Itself Off!
"We the People" have allowed an Electoral College to Vote for "We the People"??
I could go on and on.. but the bottom line is that the Bottom or the Majority.. "We the People" Broadly do NOT! give a fuck about anything other than what "We the People" are programmed with by 24 hour a day Corporate Owned News Agencies.
So??????? how do we.. the Few! influence / educate the idiot majority Sheepish Consumer Masses? How do we the few? minus 5th Ave. multi-market / sub market testing.. create meme's that can compete with the MTV Generation / Readers Digest Mentality Majority? How can we help ourselves with Truth? or more reasonably.. can we? can we help ourselves? or are we ALL too far gone?
the US government is a private corporation owned by the IMF.
We are all too far gone. Nuke firework display or genetically modified plague - coming to a city near you within a decade. Am I wrong? Is there hope that we'll get out of this without being culled to more managable numbers? If we're not culled, then aren't we looking at a Soylent Green scenario?
I gotta say that if I had young kids right now, I would despair. Glad I don't have kids.
There is now a flaw in your theory though.
While you are correct in your example that China has gamed the system by keeping their currency pegged......Remember that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction!
In this case, we print up money to buy their goods.....so they must print to keep the peg.
The result? They have paper and we have goods.
Having said that, the real problem is the low intelligence of the average US citizen in that they use paper to purchase awfully terrible non-appreciating items.
Great stuff.
You forgot to add that not only does a service economy become overly occupied with pushing things financial around on the plate, but even the useful and productive services don't fit a global trade theory. That theory says that a man in China may only make $1 an hour, but his counterpart making $40 per hour in the US can turn out 50 cars an hour. Additionaly, transportation costs, supply disruptions, and corruption are pointed to in support of global trade. Can anyone tell me how these factor into a service economy? Most services are conducted over the Internet and there is no way a Westerner can compete. Global trade was a crackpot theory used by gangsters to rob us.
We can be thankful we haven't degenerated into groupthink? Really? You mean the Republicans and Democrats aren't an example of bifurcated groupthink? How about the war on terrorism?
The only other thing I disagree with in this fine article is the notion that we can find a middle ground and fix this. History doesn't teach us that. History shows things become progressively disfunctional and complex until the tipping point is reached. That was the conclusion of Ferguson's When Money Dies, that at some point, a political solution was impossible. That has been my personal belief for some time. It's a good thing, otherwise we would all end up enslaved.
Thanks Jesse and George
Markets, esepcially current markets, may not be perfectly efficient when left to themselves (especially when different participants face different levels of regulation.) However, they are more efficient than a group of 'experts' sitting around a single table trying to create policy that accounts for literally billions or trillions of variables, some of which change too often to be measured. Free trade and markets perfect? No. Better than central planning? Yes.
Wait, wait, wait. Are you (Jesse) trying to claim that we have free trade NOW?
*Guffaw*
Free trade works very well, just like free markets work very well, and for the literal exact same reasons. The problem is that certain fools (and some smart people) for some reaon think that you can have a system be something other than what it is by giving it a false label, or by warping definitions. The fact is that there can be no free trade in this country when we print money like crazy, undermining the very foundation of the free market. Nevermind that we have numerous protectionst measures in place, including tariffs and subsidies, which by themselves abrogate any notion that the system we have is either free market or free trade in nature.
"Effective government takes planning..." LOL, might I suggest you head over to the Politburo if you want government planning? Governments don't need to plan SHIT. They need to enforce the law (don't murder, don't steal, don't trespass, don't assault, don't bear false witness) and protect the borders from foreign invasion. That's IT.
I honestly can't beleive Jesse would write a peice of filth like this.
You oversimplify 'enforcing the law'. What about the laws of business incorporation, property "rights", access to public lands and water, patents, contract law, environmental protection, liability for damages, taxes, unionization, worker safety, child labor, product safety, monopolies, banking, money, etc. ?
The entire “free market” concept is an illusion, just as is the belief in “no-government” anarchism.
How free will BP, GE, XE, Wells Fargo, and all the other mega corporations be to operate in the “free market”? Will it be a world-wide version of “United Fruit in Latin America”? How will the “free market” prevent the destruction of forests and fisheries, or the rise of private armies, monopolies, and financial racketeers?
Anarchism and free markets will work no better than before during the Middle Ages.
Businesses should not, and do not need to be incorporated. Incorporation is and always has been an evil and destructive means for making it such that the rich can do what they want with little to no consequense.
Further, what part of property rights, patents, contract law, liability for dameges, unionization, or worker safety aren't covered by laws against assault, trespassing, or bearing false witness? There should be no such thing as public land or water (indeed, public waterways are polluted, and public lands are raped by the well connected).
As I said, those corporations are not free at all--they couldn't exist as they do now, because the shareholders are immorally shielded from prosecution for their misdeeds.
And we didn't have free markets in the middle ages, you nincompoop. We had FUEDALISM. Minor difference. We did, however, have something resembling a free market as we threw off the chains of those oppressors under those old systems. The free market caused a transition from one of universal corruption, violence, child labor, and early death to a system nearly free of corruption, with little violence, where child labor was no longer required for family survival (and thus disappeared--laws didn't cause this, as child labor was mostly a thing of the past before those laws were even enacted), and where people lived long enough to see their grandchildren grow up.
How will the free market prevent deforestation and destruction of fisheries? A better question is how will government prevent those things? Remember, the government has been in total control for 98 years. In that time, fisheries have been destroyed to the point that fishermen can't survive, and forests have been clear cut around the world. Of course, privately owned lakes aren't overfished, and privately owned land has plenty of trees, especially land owned by lumber companies. But of course, fools such as yourself prefer to attribute all of the evils of government to individuals, and all of the good individuals do to the government, so you can keep the current system and keep chewing your own cud while you wait to be shorn. Well guess what? That sign says "slaughterhouse", not "shearing facility" this time. Of course, you don't care to read between the lines, or learn anything about economics or history, so who cares?
The collapse of Rome brought anarchy to the Middle Age. The roads were unsafe, trade collapsed. Communities were cut off and localized, subjected to gangs of brigands. Without government, lawlessness prevailed.
Without government protection , there hardly exists trade, much less so-called and misnamed 'free trade'.
Au contraire, there was plenty of trade, and this is seen in artifacts dug up from grave sites all over Europe during the 'Dark' Ages.
Would I rather have lived during Roman times than, say, in France in the 12th C? Well, the Romans had some nice buildings, and had pretty much mastered city-building... but were ruthless conquerers, and were famous for killing, raping, looting, maiming, and forcing people into slavery. Most of the people under the Roman yoke weren't very happy about it, public fountains notwithstanding. Your happiness very much depended on your station in life, in either period. Or now, in fact. And a lot of the problems people were experiencing in the Dark Ages were a direct result of the policies of governments extant at the time.
Anyway, as has been pointed out, TMose has not called for the complete abolition of government, so what the fuck are you talking about?
Glad to find we agree power of corporations needs to be abolished.
Does abolishment extend to all organizations? I commented earlier on this thread that all organizations, not just governments, can abuse power (religions, criminal gangs, etc.). Without government, what will prevent abuses by other organizations and groups? What will prevent the conquest of less militant groups by the more warlike?
Next, your notion of privatizing the world's natural resources, land and oceans, water and possibly even air(?).
How do you envision (amicably?) parceling it out? Who gets what? Is the present distribution of wealth to your liking?
Who gets to write the property laws, and enforce them?
No, everyone has the right ot free association. It's just that the corporate form has a fundamental flaw in the form of the corporate veil, which is imposed by the government. No government, no corporate veil, and anyone who owns a corporation is responsible for what that corporation does, just like any other partnership type business.
In the presense ofa constitutional government, the government takes care of that through the enforcement of a few simple laws. As enumerated above, these laws include:
no assault (this encompases a multitude of other crimes, including rape, kidnapping, murder, even things like pollution are handled here, as significant polluters are literally assaulting everyone downstream or downwind of them).
no theft (this includes theft by any means, including fraud, confidence games, etc).
no tresspassing (this also encompasses other things that we may see as crimes, but are not consistantly or logically enforced--pollution of different types can also be included here if in amounts that aren't dangerous but are annoying)
no false witness--this is sort of a stand alone sort of thing.
In the absense of any type of government, such things could be prevented via the institution of privately owned social insurance companies, as I have addressed in the past (search "tmosley Xeer" and you should come across some of them. Note that Xeer as it exists today is NOT compatible with western society due to the absense of VOLUNTARY and EASILY CHANGEABLE social insurance companies, rather they are clan based, which has lead to all sorts of trouble, most especially the ostracization of outsiders, which leads us to think of Somalia as highly violent.
As far as natural resources, water, and air go, one must see beyond the simplistic human distinctions between "land", and "water". When you look out across the ocean, all you see is water, and you think that it is impossible to own. This is true. You can't own that water--not really. What you CAN own is the land beneath the water. Similarly, you can't own "a river", because a river is ephermental. It can dry up or change course easily. What you can own is the land below. If water runs over your land, then you are certainly free to use it as you see fit, whether that means allowing people to use it to ferry goods, or selling it to the thirsty. This also means that you will not allow it to become polluted or dirty. "Tragedy of hte Commons" only happens when there are commons. When there are no commons, when everything is privately owned, things will be conserved according to people's values.
As for allocation, homesteading is perfectly viable, and a high enough barrier in the case of waterways that it is unlikely to happen in such a rush that wierd things happen, like people building fences out at sea. Indeed, the areas far from land are hard to own, and expensive to police, and as such, they would likely go UNOWNED, meaning anyone could pass over them freely. Of course, if someone decided to dump waste out there, those closer to shore would certainly have a great case against them, both in criminal and civil courts.
Anyone can write laws, but they don't always reflect natural law. As long as the law code is simple, and reflects natural law, then it doesn't matter who wrote it, whether it is encoded by the legislators of a constitutional government, or agreed upon between numerous social insurance agencies. It doesn't matter because those laws exist ALREADY, encoded into our very DNA as our sense of self ownership, property ownership, and fair play. The difference between law and legislation is stark, especially today, when legislation violates the law, and creates vast inequities which can not be overcome save by simply going "full reverse" and paring down the law code such that it fits on a couple of sheets of paper.
I share your desire for justice and harmonious human relationships. But your notions of fair courts and voluntary (self-?) enforcement seems disconnected and unreal.
Your faith depends on a mystical connection between DNA, 'natural law' and 'property rights' (as you state you believe they are innate),
... such religious faith requires more than just a leap, and is imbued with exceptionalist American myths about rugged individualism, frontier justice, Christian proselytization, and manifest destiny.
You've managed to mis-interpret TMose's post. I can't be arsed to get into this here (it's bedtime for me) but - for example - Natural Law is a pre-Christian concept. Early Christian theologians embraced it because of their Aristotelian bents, but the Stoics were the ones who really fleshed it out. The Romans took it from there... pagans, all.
Ask yourself this - if you were just one man, wandering alone around the planet, what would legally limit your activities? Nothing, obviously. Now, envisage more people on the planet. At what point does one person's behaviour start impinging on another? When can a person make claims to 'own' a natural resourse, like a plot of land? etc, etc...
I agree with Libertarians on most issues but I think their view on natural resource ownership is a bit flawed... but I have yet to read up sufficiently on the subject to opine with any confidence.
Why me, of course. I will be benevolent, trust me.
LOL TM, how do you really feel?
I have long thought that markets that are efficient are a bore to people who want to make money. The only easy way to make money in an efficient market is to make it inefficient. That's why you can never have an efficient market, all the participants, from the USG to the Fed, to the big money rascals, they are all striving to warp the market enough to cheat the players who believe it is a market.
Everybody in charge of trade policy knows this is a scam, but nobody has the self interest to change anything until the collapse.
Everybody involved in manipulating the stock market knows the game is to get the innocent little kids in the playground to join the tug of war, lure them onto one side of the trade, then jump in on in size and drag them through the mud. Good clean fun.
9 out of ten conspiracy theories are untrue. 9 out of ten about money are completely true. Why? It's just too damn hard to make money in an efficient market.
Excellent points. Also note that political volatility is also welcomed by the master class as a means to profit. There's always someone else to be bombed and strafed, not because they are an actual threat but because the arms industry can only expand if there are targets available.
Utter nonsense. You ignore the substance of the article then go on an incoherent rant which offers proof by assertion. Governents can plan and be effective forces for the common good. That's how we got to the moon, for one of a million examples. Your problem is that you believe that selfishness is the only worthwhile value. You prop up that belief with magical thinking and ignoring the misery that that belief is causing everywhere. That is because you are a usefull idiot who is highly susceptible to propaganda.
So there.
lol, give me some more examples, because *SURPRISE* we aren't on the moon any more, and couldn't get back there if we wanted to. Because the government has consumed our entire capital base.
Funny that you accuse me of magical thinking and causing misery, when it is empirically the GOVERNMENT that is causing misery everywhere, by invasion, bombing, interfering with democratic elections, propping up strongman dictators all around the world. But you LOVE that shit, because you are an evil person. If you really suport the government, that is.
Lol, you confuse the servant with the master. the gun with the shooter. Executive power is a tool, nothing more. It's who controls the tool and to what purpose that matters.
Power corrupts. Counter That one!
Political power is only one kind of power. How's that?
Government is, by definition, the ultimate power in the land, because it has the monopoly on physical coercion.
Wanting more government is saying you want more coercion. That makes sense in a situation of no government and everyone running around killing and robbing each other.... but as soon as there is enough force established to prevent this, then 90%(?) of government's work is done.
We surrender our rights to roam anywhere we like and take anything we like and do anything we like because our lives are better if we are not subjected to the same depradations at the hands of others. Once government increases in size beyond that point, it is no longer protecting us from predators - it IS the predator, and one which will brook no resistance.
Geez, I say anything more nuanced than hang all the politicians, and you guys think I'm some combination of Moa and Hitler. I am not saying I want more government. quite the opposite.
Get your finger off the trigger for cryin out loud
tmos is not confused about anything.
Servants and masters only exist because their is belief in the goodness of government. Sovereign individuals have neither master nor servant. Freedom excludes "executive control" and upholds through voluntary agreement the right of all individuals to be secure in their persons and property.
You have the mind of an infant.
You have the sexual fortitude of a eunuch. At least that's what your cousin said.
Your Mamma is so ugly, she went to the bathroom and scared the sh!t out of the toilet.
Well, this exchange ended on a scarring visual note...lol.
So what is the ideal size of the federal gub-mint? 20% of the farcical GDP number or 50% in your view?
I say 5%...and thats being generous given their track record of enforcing existing law while passing still newer & improved laws to "fix" the last ridiculous law they passed.