This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Who's Afraid Of Income Inequality?

Tyler Durden's picture




 

Submitted by James E. Miller of the Ludwig von Mises Institute of Canada,

Through decades of research, American neurobiologist James McGaugh discovered that as humans learn information and encounter new experiences, the part of the brain known a the amygdala plays a key role in retention.  The amygadala is activated primarily by stress hormones and other emotionally arousing stimuli.  Memory consolidation, or the forming of long term memories, is typically modulated very strongly by the amygdala.  Put simply, events that invoke significant amounts of emotion make a bigger imprint on one’s brain.

Emotion, while an important element in man’s array of mental tools, can unfortunately triumph over reason in crucial matters.  Excessive anger can lead to violent confrontations.  Heartbreak can lead a person to do drastic things in order to woo back a lost lover.  In the context of simple economic reasoning, today’s intellectual establishment often disregards common sense in favor of emotional-tinged policy proposals that rely on feelings of jealously, envy, and blind patriotism for validation rather than logical deduction.  “Eat the rich” schemes such as progressive taxation and income redistribution are used by leftists who style themselves as champions of the poor.  Plucking on the emotional strings of envy makes it easier to arouse widespread support for economic intervention via the state.

In the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008, economic growth predictably slowed down in most industrialized countries.  Many commentators on the political left have grasped onto this opportunity to point to the vast amount of income inequality which exists in the United States and reason that it played a part in causing the crash.  This argument is typically paired with a proposal to raise taxes on the rich to balance out societal incomes.  It is alleged that having government brutes step in order to play the role of Robin Hood is the best and most justified way to alleviate income inequality.

Presently, income inequality in America is at its highest peak in decades.  In 2011, a study by the Congressional Budget Office concluded that after tax income grew by 275% for the top 1% of income earners between the years of 1979 and 2007.  The top-fifth of the U.S. population saw a 10 percentage point increase in their share of total income in the same period while all other groups saw their share decrease by 2 to 3 percentage points.  The data undoubtedly shows that income inequality has been increasing over the past few decades.  New York Times columnist and economist Paul Krugman has latched onto the evidence and is suggesting that rising income inequality plays a part in causing recessions.  Economist Joseph Stiglitz, who recently wrote the book “The Price of Inequality,” has argued that without a fair share of the national income, the middle class is unable to spend enough to keep aggregate demand elevated.  Both economists see income inequality as a danger to the prosperity of a nation.   Such a message is appealing to the greater public because it plays on their perceptions that the world is unfair.  It almost seems intuitive to think that the rich posses too much wealth or that a prosperous society is one in which income is more equalized.  Comfortableness in these beliefs paves the way for income redistribution efforts by the ever-scheming political class.

With income inequality a hot topic of debate going into the fifth year of the biggest economic downturn since the Great Depression, the question remains: does income inequality have a negative impact on society as Stiglitz and Krugman suggest?  And is growing income inequality an inherit part of capitalism?

First and foremost, the idea of equality for man in physical attributes, mental fitness, and material security  is essentially anti-human.  The most appealing aspect of mankind is that every person varies from one another in a myriad of different ways.  Some are better athletes, some are quicker studies, some have outer features that make them generally more attractive.  It follows that some men and women will be more apt at producing or better attuned to the demands of the marketplace.  They will have higher incomes by virtue of their own entrepreneurship or capacity to produce.  So, in a sense, income inequality is a fact of the free market.  But it is the possibility of inequality and the ability to achieve a higher income that makes capitalism work.  Punishing those who excel at making consumers better off punishes the very market mechanism that leads to better living standards overall.  In a free society, income inequality is not good or bad; it is part of the functioning order.  Any attempt to make incomes more equal through state measures is unjustified plunder of the rightful earners of wealth.

But what of the inequality in income that exists in today’s state-corporatist economy?  Did the 1% acquire its wealth solely through hard work?  The answer is hardly in many cases.  Though there are some innovative businessmen who became rich by providing new and better products, the sharp increase in income inequality over the past two decades is due to an economic phenomenon outside of normal market operations.  Krugman and Stiglitz rightfully point out that the greatest periods of income inequality in the United States were the late 1920s and the period since the mid-1990s.  What they fail to mention is that both these periods were not defined by capitalism run amok but by massive credit expansion.  This expansion in credit, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose money policy, is the real culprit behind vast income inequality.  Economist George Reisman explains:

the new and additional funds created in credit expansion show up very soon in the financial markets, where they drive up the prices of securities, above all, common stocks. The owners of common stock are preponderantly wealthy individuals, who now find themselves the beneficiaries of substantial capital gains. These gains are the greater the larger and more prolonged the credit expansion is and the higher it drives the prices of shares. In the process of new and additional money pouring into the financial markets, investment bankers and stock speculators are in a position to reap especially great gains.

Since it’s so important, the main point just made needs to be repeated: credit expansion creates an artificial economic inequality by showing up in the stock market and driving up stock prices.

Money acts as a medium of exchange but is not neutral in its effects on receivership.  Those first receivers are able to bid up the price of goods before any other market participants.  As the newly created money flows into the economy, the general price level rises to reflect the new volume of currency.  In practice, credit expansion which brings about a reduction in interest rates also increases the amount of time businesses can go without making deductions for depreciation on their balance sheets as they purchase capital goods.  Because investment tends to go toward durable goods during periods of credit expansion, there is less funds left over to devote to labor.  Profits end up being recorded while wages sag behind.  Since credit expansion and inflationary policy go hand in hand in distorting relative prices and must eventually come to an end, the bust that occurs reveals wasteful investment.  Recession sets in shortly thereafter.

Printed money is not the same as accumulated savings which would otherwise fund sustainable lines of investment.  And it is only through adding to the economy’s pool of real savings that productive capacity is able to increase in the long term.  The wealthy have a higher propensity to save precisely because they have a higher income.  It is through their savings that new business ventures are funded and the economy is able to grow without the faux profits from government-enabled credit expansion.  This is why raising taxes on the rich is a backwards solution to income inequality.  Taxation only funnels money out of the productive, private sector and into the public sector which focuses on spending to meet political ends rather than consumer satisfaction.  All government spending boils down to wasted capital. The truth is that capital is always scarce; there is never enough of it.

Pointing out this fact is by no means corporate shilling.  Many corporations and well connected businesses lobby for tax increases in order to burden their competitors.  Currently in California, Governor Jerry Brown is campaigning for a ballot measure which would raise taxes on the state’s richest residents.  According to the Wall Street Journal, companies such as Disney, NBC, Warner Bros., Viacom, CBS, and Sony have each already pitched in $100,000 for the initiative.  Various energy companies are financially supporting the ballot measure to make sure that a 25% tax on natural gas and oil extraction isn’t next.  As the scope of government becomes all the more encompassing, big business starts seeing profit opportunity in using its forceful authority to better its own competitive position.  In their unceasing tirades over income inequality, Stiglitz and Krugman recognize the trouble rent-seeking poses to competitive markets yet both reason that the problem doesn’t lie with the state but with those politicians and bureaucrats who occupy its enforcement officesTo put it bluntly, this notion isn’t just juvenile; it rests on the fallacious assumption that government is staffed by only the most well-meaning of individuals in society.  As history and reason dictate however, good souls are not attracted to positions of absolute power.  The state, by Max Weber’s definition, holds the monopoly over force in a given area.  Practically every action taken by state officials introduces violence or the spoils from violence into an otherwise free society.  It follows that only those seeking to use state authority for their own benefit naturally gravitate toward politics.

Krugman and Stiglitz believe, as most do, that Americans should be born with the opportunity to succeed.  To create an environment of fairness, they propose a variety of government policies so that even the most impoverished individuals will have a shot at the American Dream.  Their arguments rest largely on emotion instead of reason and are aimed at inspiring reactionary protest.  What they fail to see (or refuse to acknowledge) is that the free market provides the best opportunities for someone to make a decent living by providing goods and services.  In a totally uninhibited market, profits come only to those who satisfy consumers more than their competition.  Contrary to Stiglitz’s suggestion, Henry Ford wasn’t a great businessman because he paid his workers a high wage.  He made his fortune by streamlining the process from which cars were built in order to sell them at a lower price.  The employees at Ford were able to increase their productivity, and thus wages, through the previous accumulation of capital and investment in machinery.  Ford’s massive profits didn’t last long however as domestic and foreign competition copied the mass production model and were able to attract market share of their own.  The greater the amount of cars on the market meant lower prices for all consumers in the end.

Again, in a truly free market the only way to maintain a rising income is to continually produce at a more efficient and more innovative rate.  In an economy plagued by the heavy hand of government, the market becomes rigged in favor of those connected to the ruling establishment.  Competition is decreased by the rising cost of adhering to regulations, innovation stagnates, and more income flows to the top.  Through central banking and credit expansion, profits are able to be recorded by the financial industry and first receivers of money before the rest of the population; which in turn leads to further evidence of income inequality.

No matter how you slice it, taxation is theft It is indiscernible from highway robbery and devoid of any moral justification.  Income inequality is a problem not because the government isn’t doing enough to combat it but because politicians and bureaucrats never tire of intervening into the private affairs of society.  With government intervention present in practically all market transactions, the solution to income inequality is to remove the intervention; not empower the state further by increasing the amount of funds at its disposal.

 

- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:00 | 2686692 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

"Such a message is appealing to the greater public because it plays on their perceptions that the world is unfair."

I wonder why that is... Please do tell what part of this nightmare is free market capitalism and why those with so much wealth deserve what they have because they were so productive and never "fixed" the game.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:01 | 2686704 Daily Bail
Daily Bail's picture

REPORT: Five Senior Goldman Sachs Execs Gave $130K To 'Obama Victory Fund' WHILE Eric Holder Was Deciding Whether To File Criminal Charges

I'll tell you what else is not 'equitable'...the fact that Goldman makes its own fucking rules.

New story.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:10 | 2686713 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

What a supershitty article. I almost wish LetthemeatRand could come here and rant at this guy a bit.

 

"yeah ok the 1% stole all your money, but you shouldn't demand it back, rather from here on out it will be no more stealing, mmkay?"

 

Guess what, Ludwig Mises institute, that solution will not fly, regardless of how much your rich crony donors want it to.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:34 | 2686744 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

You don't really believe that when politicians raise taxes on the rich that you're going to get money back, do you? And a 100% tax on the top 1% will cover only 1 month of government debt. Guess who will have to pay higher taxes to cover the other eleven months of the year?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:43 | 2686757 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

What I am saying is that it is a distraction, a ruse, a ploy to make you look in the wrong place.

 

The left will bleat on about income inequality and the right will bleat on about excessive social security costs.

 

Anyone who contributes to this ruse should be called on it. Merely removing taxes or doing any of the things the author suggests would just make matters infinitely worse. Because the very system has been corrupted.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:45 | 2686759 Spirit Of Truth
Spirit Of Truth's picture

You know....there's a reason Ayn Rand's philosophy of "objective reality" is expressed in subjective fictions.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:18 | 2686798 CrazyCooter
CrazyCooter's picture

When I hit this thread, I tabulated the following in response counts:

dwdollar        1+1+1+1+1+1
daily bail        1
dr benway        1+1+1
CrockettAlmanac.com    1+1+1+1+1
Spirit Of Truth        1
jwoop66            1
Anusocracy        1

Regards,

Cooter

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:34 | 2687305 engineertheeconomy
engineertheeconomy's picture

Take it UP THE ASS with "POSITIVITY" according to Bernanke in yesterday's brainwashing session

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:21 | 2686802 Ben Dover
Ben Dover's picture

Like a lot of shit in books that deals with philosophy, politics or ethics it always works really well in paper. In the real world? Not so much.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:33 | 2686820 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Ayn Rand's injunction that individuals should develop their own talents and promote their own values rather than those of an elite but unproductive class has worked out pretty well for me. I used to be a liberal Democrat who waited for the government to fix all the real and imaginary problems in the world. That was no fun at all.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:04 | 2686859 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

Abolish the federal government but let states tax for certain agreed items. With 50 states we can have much to choose from and live in areas that one agrees with. This will also promote individuals to be more active politically. I would abolish usury as well but I'd be called anti-semetic for that

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:35 | 2686922 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

With 50 states we can have much to choose from and live in areas that one agrees with.

__________________________________

And one does not choose for. Makes me laugh when US citizens do not include that little bit.

A meaningful segment of population will be left to live in places they are being told to, as no other places will let them in.

But US citizens are duplicitous. Since the beginning, they have chosen to advance their personal profit under the guise of freedom, justice and truth.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:08 | 2687019 GetZeeGold
GetZeeGold's picture

 

 

But US citizens are duplicitous.

 

We're also sneaky and shifty......you really don't want to take your eyes off of us even for a second.

 

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:16 | 2687100 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

On the contrary. US citizen nature is eternal.

You'll find US citizens where you expect them, as according to their US citizen nature.

They are unable to innovate. So you can sleep at ease.

If indeed, they were able to surprise people by breaking their immutable US citizen nature, that would be something.

But it is not as their nature is eternal.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:25 | 2687114 blueRidgeBoy
blueRidgeBoy's picture

"unable to innovate"...MDB, is that you?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:32 | 2687124 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

If indeed, they were able to surprise people by breaking their immutable US citizen nature, that would be something.

Of all people to comment on someone's immutable nature, this one takes the cake.

Is he being hypocritical or is he engaging in psychological projection of his own character flaws? I don't believe the two behaviors are mutually exclusive (in fact, they seem to go hand in hand), so in this case there is probably a significant amount of both.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:50 | 2687184 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Empty. Nothing in it.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:27 | 2687042 YuropeanImbecille
YuropeanImbecille's picture

Well with a government that works for the middle class not AGAINST it, things would look up. Sadly we the middle class are stupid cunts and elect idiots and charlatans like Obama/Romney whoever who just squeezes the living shit out of us.

Here in Europe the middle class is the cash cow for the zionist-satanists, we pay for our own destruction and ultimatley our own death!

Some rules that would enable a more healthy society.

 

1. Corporations are not allowed to donate to political parties and/or candidates.

2. Foodstams/wellfare for those that have never worked shall be cut to 0, immediately.

To be eligable for welfare you need to have worked full time at least 18 months prior to the fact.

3. Income tax shall be capped at a maximum total of 22.5% of anyones income.

4. Sales tax will be banned across the board.

5. Forbid the government to engage in any business like activity. Including "ear marked" stacks of cash to their pals in different corporations.

6. The government/state/Federal can only engage in infrastructure, defense and emergency services kind of service.

7. repeat offenders will be sentenced to a minimum of 25 years hard labor, doing infrastructure works. regardless of their crime.

8. Lethal violence may be used to defend any property or human life.

9. Financial fraud/crime shall be punished by execution of not only the defendant, but also his/her entire family tree shall be eradicated.

10. The promotion of Socialism/Unions/religion/zionism and similar will be punished with instant execution in an federally provided execution bus.

11. 45% trader tariffs on anything deemed a threat to the internal production of similar goods/services.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:19 | 2687107 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

An 'American' government always works for the middle class. Hallmark of US citizen governments.

An 'American' government can rob resources to be bestowed to its middle class. 'American' governments have done this lavishly.

What they can not do, is create resources in a finite world.
At the moment, resources are lacking to maintain US citizen middle class in their lavish way of life.

Too many US citizens, not enough Indians.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:42 | 2687059 monad
monad's picture

You know... she also wrote alot of dry, logical books, articles and speeches.

Perhaps if you use the internet for something other than demonstrating that you are not as knowledgable as you think, and that you don't check the facts about such things before you make claims like this one, I'll stop thinking that all sheople get what they deserve and deserve what they get.

Diversely talented, she also wrote good fiction. I undersand she was pretty fun in bed, too. Her books are still worldwide best sellers today, which says alot more than you impune. She is the second most read author in the world, after that most absurd piece of subjective fiction, the Bible.

And... and Ayn Rand was JEWISH! OMFG!!! Be afraid! Its a Jewish conspiracy, to make people think and respect hard working, honest, high acheivers, and to take responsibility for themselves! What a mean thing to do! The horror... the horror...

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:22 | 2687110 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Respect hard working, honest, high achievers?

Ummm, what she provides is more like cover for hard working, high achieving thiefs, as she wrote for an audience of 'Americans'.

Post theft economy thinker. Unable to deal with reality, propagandist and fantasist.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:37 | 2687135 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

Unable to deal with reality, propagandist and fantasist.

You know, that sounds remarkably like the guy that scurried away like a frightened little mouse from this comment thread:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-03/should-we-arrest-dc-poli...

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:54 | 2687198 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Frightened of what?

The points were made.

It boiled down to this: in order to discuss reality, you threw in fantasy.

I called the trick out.

You kept to the trick, and were unable to provide a new one.

Do you want to read endlessly that 'Americans' are the only ones to vouch for 'Americanism'?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:22 | 2687273 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

Frightened of what?

The points were made.

It boiled down to this: in order to discuss reality, you threw in fantasy.

It's there for anyone to see, and yet you still deny, you still lie, you still refuse to accept reality. Reality is what frightens you, which is why you cling to lies and denial.

You're a sick puppy.

Do you want to read endlessly that 'Americans' are the only ones to vouch for 'Americanism'?

No, although your endless repetition of it has shown no signs of abatement. Too bad it's the only thing that gives meaning to your sad little existence.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 22:45 | 2689845 monad
monad's picture

Sorry Kato. You are mistaking Ayn Rand for The Simpsons. When we teach FOBs the language we mess with you. And thats not a B-A-N-K, thats a C-A-S-I-N-O. Don't give them your money. You are supposed to demand your money and if they don't give it to you, say "This is a stick up!" That always worked. Don't tell anyone, its a secret. 

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 15:20 | 2688629 earleflorida
earleflorida's picture

insufferable  compassion in a myopic world through the narcissistic eyes of solipsistic entropy - a stark reality that randy ayn, would not, could not accept! 

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:08 | 2686779 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Taxation supports the system which was corrupt from its inception. Higher taxes will only give that corrupt system nore support. Increasing the power of corruption is certainly no cure for corruption. Reducing the power of the corrupt system has a much more reasonable chance of improving the situation.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:06 | 2686780 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Flush out your headgear, new guy. Did you even read the fucking essay? The author explained very clearly why the system has been corrupted, but apparently you are not able to read for comprehension.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:39 | 2686832 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

Look moron, we have a system where the rich have perverted every aspect, including those of lawmaking and enforcement.

They openly now commit crimes to gain further wealth. Cutting their taxes won't help, OK?

 

Libertarianism is an adolescent way of thought, as extreme and unrealistic as communism. It never addresses key problems that leads to its breakdown, like how big money inevitably seizes power of a very unregulated society. Great on paper, though.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:48 | 2686842 Mentaliusanything
Mentaliusanything's picture

Free John Corzine!

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:09 | 2687084 Town Crier
Town Crier's picture

This story reveals an important insight: that the EXTREMELY wealthy seek to burden with taxation/regulation the comparatively moderate "wealthy" and vilify them by populist rhetoric as a way avoiding potential competition.  The EXTREMELY wealthy can survive the burdens but the standard "wealthy" cannot.  

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:05 | 2686858 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

how big money inevitably seizes power of a very unregulated society.

 

No. Big money seizes power in a regulated society. A regulated society has levers of power which are available to those who obtain power which they use to manipulate others within the system and maintain their power without actually being productive. In a system unregulated by a government with disproportionate and corruptible power all individuals are forced to provide goods or services which people actually want in order to obtain wealth. A free market has no mechanism with which to compel others to give up their money or their freedom against their will but can provide security and adjudicative services to protect against fraud, theft and acts of violence.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:06 | 2686861 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

hahaha, you sound like fucking Tom Cruise talking scientology!

 

What you are spewing is religion, not reason.

 

And the big money use your ilk as pawns in think tanks, to provide the intellectual backing for their theft

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:10 | 2686865 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

It is not religious to believe that an individual with first hand knowledge of his own situation is in the best position to make decisions for himself. It is religious to believe that man is a too flawed to master his own fate and so must appeal to an elite class with esoteric knowledge for cradle to grave decision making.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:56 | 2686897 Bohm Squad
Bohm Squad's picture

^^^That, my thirsty friends, is how you win an argument.

 

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:20 | 2686914 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

If you believe in Utopias and ignore that whole history of the human condition.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:07 | 2687082 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 If you believe in Utopias and ignore that whole history of the human condition.

The whole history of the human condition being that all governments get hijacked by monied interests and then usurp state power for illegitimate ends?

ie, that if the people don't keep their governments on a tight leash, the guardians will eventually indulge in worse predation then the predators they were appointed to guard against?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 10:33 | 2687507 odatruf
odatruf's picture

I belive you've nailed dark pool's thought exactly.  Or at least my own.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:37 | 2686924 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

It is not religious

----------------------

It is similar to religious to keep clinging to a set of beliefs while dismissing obvious counterpoints that invalidate the set of beliefs.

It is the hallmark of religious faith: reality can not be accepted as it invalidates the set of beliefs.

This is what libertarians do.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 06:39 | 2686999 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Shouldn't you be off spreading some Han citizenism and shooting Tibetan dissidents?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 06:54 | 2687008 nmewn
nmewn's picture

Just as soon as he gets done with his chinese citizenism art project. The winner gets an extra bowl of rice per day for a month.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:14 | 2687096 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Nope. US citizens growing in China do that job much better than anyone. No one can beat 'Americans' to this kind of games. And it frees time for the others.

I am taking a lesson studying that 'American' who shot Sikhs. Always something to learn for the world masters, US citizens. 'Americans' are a lecture for humility, they humble all the extorters of the weak, farmers of the poor human history has provided.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:45 | 2687164 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

.

It is similar to religious to keep clinging to a set of beliefs while dismissing obvious counterpoints that invalidate the set of beliefs.

Funny you should mention that. Just a few days ago there was a guy in the comment thread for another article that was doing the same sort of clinging to a set of beliefs. He was even dismissing obvious counterpoints that invalidated his set of beliefs. Here, take a look and let me know what you think:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-03/should-we-arrest-dc-poli...

It is the hallmark of religious faith: reality can not be accepted as it invalidates the set of beliefs.

That's pretty much the same thing I told him, except for it being the hallmark of his mental disorder.

He couldn't accept reality, so he cowered and ran away.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:58 | 2687213 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

What reality are you talking about?

Your starting point was fantasy:

---------------------------
For the sake of argument, pretend that you are a US citizen that does not support the politicians, believes they are breaking the law, and wants to begin arresting them. What would you do?
----------------------------

You were unable after being pointing out at many times to accept that the question in reality address 'Americans' and is not about what non proponents of 'Americanism' should do but about what 'Americans' are doing in regard with what 'Americanism' allows them and calls them to do.

It is how reality is.

Hammering a fictional point with the hope it substitutes reality is another hallmark of religious faith.

Maybe harsh, but even with the lack of corrections, reality stays the same.

'Americans' vouch for 'Americanism'. No one else.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:29 | 2687294 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

He still evades such a simple question. If he tried to answer it, it would undercut the conclusion he arrived at, exposing his entire thesis as fraudulent.

Evasion, denial, lying, and avoidance of reality are his hallmarks. They help him to protect his most treasured possession: his hatred for humanity.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 10:36 | 2687528 odatruf
odatruf's picture

I can't for the life of me follow the circular referances to Americans and US Citizen(ism).  I've tried to follow it a few times in the past, as I generally think most people are worth trying to understand, but I can never get a clear sense of what AnAnon's point is.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:16 | 2687027 Ricky Bobby
Ricky Bobby's picture

Dr Moron HA HA you sound like fucking Sean Penn

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:50 | 2687066 Cosimo de Medici
Cosimo de Medici's picture

By pissing on their fantasy you risk losing your visa to Galt's Gulch, where they will all be productive owners of coin shops and ammo reloaders, where there will be no need for even a Better Business Bureau because the natural honesty and integrity of the human species will reign supreme, where the harsh reality of ten thousand years of human behavior is ignored, and where George Orwell was dead before he had a chance to have a go at doing to Ayn Rand and her childish naive pablum what he did to Marx and Engels.

If Genghis Khan hadn't been born under a strong central authority where his raping and pillaging was pre-approved by a democratically elected Parliament, he never would have been able to subjugate most of the known world.  It was all that regulation in the Steppes that made his mayhem possible.  Notice that like Hitler and Switzerland, Genghis never took Galt's Gulch.  Q.E.D.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:17 | 2686868 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

The unregulated driving with no cops does sound appealling

Btw your bit about a free market bothering to pay to provide protection against fraud is the most laughable comment of the year

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:22 | 2686875 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Roads Gone Wild

 

 

Monderman is one of the leaders of a new breed of traffic engineer - equal parts urban designer, social scientist, civil engineer, and psychologist. The approach is radically counterintuitive: Build roads that seem dangerous, and they'll be safer.

Monderman and I are tooling around the rural two-lane roads of northern Holland, where he works as a road designer. He wants to show me a favorite intersection he designed. It's a busy junction that doesn't contain a single traffic signal, road sign, or directional marker, an approach that turns eight decades of traditional traffic thinking on its head.

Wearing a striped tie and crisp blue blazer with shiny gold buttons, Monderman looks like the sort of stout, reliable fellow you'd see on a package of pipe tobacco. He's worked as a civil engineer and traffic specialist for more than 30 years and, for a time, ran his own driving school. Droll and reserved, he's easy to underestimate - but his ideas on road design, safety, and city planning are being adopted from Scandinavia to the Sunshine State.

Riding in his green Saab, we glide into Drachten, a 17th-century village that has grown into a bustling town of more than 40,000. We pass by the performing arts center, and suddenly, there it is: the Intersection. It's the confluence of two busy two-lane roads that handle 20,000 cars a day, plus thousands of bicyclists and pedestrians. Several years ago, Monderman ripped out all the traditional instruments used by traffic engineers to influence driver behavior - traffic lights, road markings, and some pedestrian crossings - and in their place created a roundabout, or traffic circle. The circle is remarkable for what it doesn't contain: signs or signals telling drivers how fast to go, who has the right-of-way, or how to behave. There are no lane markers or curbs separating street and sidewalk, so it's unclear exactly where the car zone ends and the pedestrian zone begins. To an approaching driver, the intersection is utterly ambiguous - and that's the point.

Monderman and I stand in silence by the side of the road a few minutes, watching the stream of motorists, cyclists, and pedestrians make their way through the circle, a giant concrete mixing bowl of transport. Somehow it all works. The drivers slow to gauge the intentions of crossing bicyclists and walkers. Negotiations over right-of-way are made through fleeting eye contact. Remarkably, traffic moves smoothly around the circle with hardly a brake screeching, horn honking, or obscene gesture. "I love it!" Monderman says at last. "Pedestrians and cyclists used to avoid this place, but now, as you see, the cars look out for the cyclists, the cyclists look out for the pedestrians, and everyone looks out for each other. You can't expect traffic signs and street markings to encourage that sort of behavior. You have to build it into the design of the road."

 

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.12/traffic.html

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:53 | 2686895 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

Yeah plenty of them in jersey since their roads are like noodles but have fun putting them at every corner in every city.

My thought was more about doing 120 to the grocery store or dropping off the kids at school. You still have schools right?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:25 | 2687039 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

The roundabout is common in most of Europe and Australia. I absolutely love them and wish we had them here. Hands down, the best traffic innovation I have come across. 

They encourage the driver to be engaged in the process and aware of others. They cut down on lost time, because you are not kept at lights or signs when no one else is there. Perhaps the best part? You will never get a ticket from a camera.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:58 | 2687070 francis_sawyer
francis_sawyer's picture

I like 'em too for the same reasons... What I'm afraid of is that now that you mentioned this "You will never get a ticket from a camera"... Somebody is going to get an idea to ban all roundabouts because they don't generate any revenue...

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:43 | 2686928 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The article admits fewer accidents.

But no accidents.

As accidents happen, it would be funny to know how this situation is negociated as it includes US citizens who are well known to shy from their responsibility anytime the consequences are negative.

One could get the idea that traffic in the US might quickly grow into segregated zones.

That would suit US citizen tastes.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:12 | 2687089 BigJim
BigJim's picture

Responsibility? HanBot take no responsibility for dead Tibetans, they all US Citizenism citizens resisting Han Citizenism attempts to eradicate their culture.

No individual noodle ever takes responsibility for bowl-of-noodles mishap.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:28 | 2687119 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

You make a big mistake once again.

If indeed, China had turned fully to 'Americanism', the Tibetans' status would be changed from victims to rag tags, attacking on honest, hard working, producing people.

It is most unfortunate that US citizens keep denying their own history and the legacy of it to the world.

Nothing has given more comfort and justification to the extorters of the weak, farmers of the poor than 'Americanism'

Nothing is more inspiring to them than the history of the US and some other US citizen nations.

Thanks to 'Americanism', the moral ground to condemn the actions in Tibet is lost forever.

No matter how bad you want the Chinese to perform in their tibetan province, US citizens have provided the Chinese with a cushion of justification.

That is the way it is.

US world order.

'Americans' lost their rightful right to denounce this kind of operation on 1776, July, 4th.

Something they have troubles to come to terms with.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 13:33 | 2688229 Mordecai
Mordecai's picture

Excuse me,

I have had a hard time following your agruments.

However, I find them very interesting and would like to here more.

Could you please explain in detail what you mean by 'Americanism', and 'American eternal nature'?

Also, could you please explain how 'Americans' hijacked humanity on 1776, July, 4th with the Declaration of Independance?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:13 | 2687253 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Seeking further humiliation, AnAnonymous said:

As accidents happen, it would be funny to know how this situation is negociated as it includes US citizens who are well known to shy from their responsibility anytime the consequences are negative.

Since it mentions that this particular roundabout is in northern Holland, it doesn't actually include US citizens.

On the other hand, roundabouts do exist in the US, although they are uncommon. There is one near me where eight two-lane roads converge. During busy times of the day, the roundabout will accommodate several dozen vehicles at a time, all without stop signs of traffic signals.

Yes, accidents sometimes happen. The situation is nearly always negotiated by the vehicles involved pulling off into the parking lot of the nearest business and waiting until the police arrive.

I know that's not the AnAnswer that AnAnonymous was looking for, but the real world rarely aligns with his cartoonish perceptions.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 10:41 | 2687557 odatruf
odatruf's picture

I think I am finally groking him: we are all Americans, now.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:07 | 2686905 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

No. Big money seizes power in a regulated society. A regulated society has levers of power which are available to those who obtain power which they use to manipulate others within the system and maintain their power without actually being productive. In a system unregulated by a government with disproportionate and corruptible power all individuals are forced to provide goods or services which people actually want in order to obtain wealth.
_______________________________

The bit collapses on itself and once more, US citizen type, demands submission to be accepted.

At first, it reads about a regulated society. So okay.

And suddenly, it reads about a system unregulated by a government.

Governments are one source of regulation. Actually, they are not even a source. The source is competition. Competition is a quantifying process and thus requires a rule to function.

Back to the point: removing government from a society does not remove regulation. It removes one agent of regulation only. It means that by point one on regulated societies, powerful people can still put their hands on the regulation apparatuses.

The whole bit collapses on itself. It is US citizen type: a fact is told as the postulate and just in the same breath, is manipulated so to get US citizens to congregate around the manipulation and defend it.

People interested in regulated societies can not limit themselves to the government. They have to provide for all the rest of regulation that exist.

As Randians advocate for competition which is the source for the demand of regulation, once again, it is only US citizen nature at work: they want to oust the primary gang to take the position.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:42 | 2686927 Mad Cow
Mad Cow's picture

The contradictory indicator argues throughout the havoc, and a pressing exhaust inflates the line.

Plop!

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 10:22 | 2687410 Omen IV
Omen IV's picture

total bullshit

when there was NO rules -

for one example: standard oil systematically eliminated the competition with complete control of the integration system for the: production / distribution / marketing of oil based products by use of criminal acts / destruction of competitive property / buyouts / predatory pricing and many other neferious means

the clayton anti-trust and sherman anti-trust acts circa teddy roosevelt - was used for multiple situations like this to limit their discretion - today we have the same situation in another form - crony capitalism  - whereby the government flag has been captured via corruption and lack of enforcement or selective enforcement that have been on the books for 100 years - but it is essentially the same problem that existed 100 years ago and was solved -  rules of conduct /taxation to protect society 

the rationalization of this article with dubious theories of the ultra-rich decision making criteria absent government intervention in the market place is a joke played on the unsuspecting or illiterate

there are 1,000 books written over the the last 100 years that describe the effective absence of government enforcement / taxes with specific examples from  every industry imaginable - the regulatory / tax superstructure that exists today was not irrational -  it was for a proven menace to society and put in place over a long period of time

competition requries rules of engagement for an effective market - or they steal everyone blind as the banks do today - criminal sanctions for HUMAN BEINGS with long jail terms solve the currrent problems

taxes are required to protect and enlarge the middle class which recirculates discretionary cash flow at a higher percentage that the ultra rich will ever - the ultra rich have systems to take the discretionary cash flow and move it offshore - like romney - to escape taxation and seek slave labor environments

they will never reinvest - ever - absent a "high" taxation environment / reason to create depreciation and amortization to control and minimize taxes in an environment with labor at greater than slave wages

cancel the WTO/GATT reintroduce 1994 era tariffs with reciprocal trade for only those economic systems -for example EEC  - with comparable wage rates

unemployment will be eliminated and growth will go up substantially - any wage inflation is acceptable trade in a heirachy of alternative evil 

 

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:09 | 2686864 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Well, congratulations. You have it 180 degrees backwards.

Let me try to explain it to you using two and three syllable words.

Big Money seizes power over society by seizing government. They seize it by buying off politicians and judges. Once they buy off the government, they make it bigger, with MORE regulations, MORE police and bureaucrats to enforce those regulations, and MORE taxes to pay those bureaucrats and police.

Did you ever wonder why it was only small businesses that complain about regulation and government interference? The only time that a big corporation complains about regulations is when their competitors managed to buy the regulators and legislators before they could.

Think it through.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:31 | 2686879 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

You are expressing FAITH here, you are not exercising reason.

 

A country with weak government is totally at the mercy of big money and mafia thugs.

 

Your libertarian utopia is just that and no more - a utopia. As unrealistic as the communist one, and as dismissive of the details in many cases.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:45 | 2686889 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

More's Utopia was a centrally planned society. Libertarians believe that individuals can best make decisions for themselves. That is the opposite of Utopia.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:02 | 2686901 r00t61
r00t61's picture

"Mafia thugs..."

Try telling the government (the legalized Mafia) that you don't want to pay your taxes (your protection money) any more, and that you won't be paying the interest on the debt that they've accrued in your name (the vig).  See how fast the IRS/FBI/DHS (the Mafia enforcers) come knocking on your door to teach you a lesson you won't forget.

Government is the Mafia.  All that concentrated power makes it imminently prone to corruption.  It then becomes nothing more than a sociopath's sandbox.  That's because people don't understand that government has a finite life-cycle.  It doesn't exist in some static bubble, only "improving" as more "laws" get passed and more "policies" get implemented.  From the moment a government is implemented, someone is looking to use it to enrich himself at others' expense. 

Your government utopia - one where you give vast amounts of power to a monolithic, hierarchical organization, begging them all the while, "Please, protect me, and please, by the way, don't abuse this power that I've given you," is just that, and no more - a utopia.  A fantasy land in which power doesn't corrupt, eventually corrupting absolutely, leading to that government's painful crash.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:30 | 2686920 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

And Jefferson had the answer in that governments should be renewed every generation or so but tell that to the winners at the poker table that all the chips go back to the pile and they can't cash out

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:37 | 2687054 James-Morrison
James-Morrison's picture

Can anyone explain we we don't have term limits when everyone wants them?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 10:44 | 2687572 odatruf
odatruf's picture

Because what everyone really wants is term limts for everyone else's Congressman, not their own.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 06:44 | 2687003 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 A country with weak government is totally at the mercy of big money and mafia thugs.

Small-government Libertarians are not arguing for a 'weak' government - they're arguing for a strong government that is drastically limited in scope.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:59 | 2686899 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Did you ever wonder why it was only small businesses that complain about regulation and government interference? The only time that a big corporation complains about regulations is when their competitors managed to buy the regulators and legislators before they could.

Think it through.
___________________________

Indeed. The regulatory side comes from competition.

Small businesses are screaming because they are no longer able to turn tables in the competition process.

Buying out the referee, manipulating the rule so it measures more when it is you and less when it is others is always the best competitive edge one can give oneself.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 04:35 | 2686954 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

"an unregulated society"  That says it all:  you're a control freak who hates the ideal of individual freedom and liberty, which, by the by, is what you refer to as libertarianism.  But if you lack talent and ability envy will often dominate more rational considerations as stated clearly in this article-read that secion again as it is the key point.  Those with talent and ability practice liberatarian behavior every time they take personal responsibility for problem solving in their lives rather than relying on experts "regulators" employed by the state.

This is an excellent essay that explains how debt and credit expansion destroys sound money, punishing savers and rewarding those with first access to the newly created credit.  However, if you're too dominated by envy of those with talent to understand this rational concept make your future comments on the Huffington Post or MoveOn where other control freaks and statists like to post. 

The best advice for dealing with the state:  "starve the beast"

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:32 | 2687050 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

It is amusing to see the control freaks insecurities on parade. They either want to A: tell people what to do or B: be told what to do. The whole idea that llife contain the unexpected scares the bejesus outta them.

Driven by fear, they live their lives scampering from one hideout to another. The great outdoors? Close it in and tame it. 

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:30 | 2687122 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

They either want to A: tell people what to do or B: be told what to do.

________________

Fits the bill for 'Americans' as shown by the declaration of Independence, when they hijacked humanity.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:01 | 2687221 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

And a contemporary example can be found here:

One can see how 'Americans' call for someone else to explain how 'Americans' should do as their system allows for citizens'arrest.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-03/should-we-arrest-dc-poli...

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:42 | 2687322 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

I was going to give you a green arrow for pointing out the fantasies, evasions, and lies that you use as a substitute for rational thought and discussion, but you screwed up the link.

You need to put "?page=2" before the comment number if the comment isn't on the first page of an article. Although this could be one of your famous offuscationary tricks, I think the more likely explanation is your blithering ineptitude.

Here is the fixed link for those who'd like to see a classic example of AnAnonymous making a clean break from reality:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-08-03/should-we-arrest-dc-poli...

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:55 | 2687202 acetinker
acetinker's picture

Got a suggestion for ya', Dr. BenGay:  Grow up and learn to do your own due diligence in the marketplace.  NEVER trust anyone (especially "leaders") to protect you.  If you depend on authority figures to run an effective, efficient and fair system, then you are fukked right out of the gate.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:47 | 2686931 putaipan
putaipan's picture

debt forgiveness. prosicutions. land/rentier tax, maybe a little sales tax

presto! ...back in buisness.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 06:03 | 2686990 Peter Pan
Peter Pan's picture

Both great wealth and great poverty can be deserved outcomes depending on the circumstances leading to either one. The level of taxes and the distribution of benefits is always emotive but perhaps the mix might be better judged by a number of factors, including the poverty level, efficiency of resource consumption, the level and quality of infrastructure, productivity etc. In other words is society moving ahead as a whole or is it plagued by high debt, war, discontent and the rule of law failing its citizens.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 05:32 | 2686974 Chaffinch
Chaffinch's picture

You need to go a lot further than taxing the top 1% (or 0.01%) on their current year's proceeds of crime. Capital taxes on the top .01% (who reputedly own 66% of the world's wealth) would raise enough to pay off National Debts completely, so we can have a grand global reset.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:40 | 2686748 jwoop66
jwoop66's picture

Life is unfair.  

 

Free markets are the closest things to "fair" that we have in life.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:18 | 2686872 XenoFrog
XenoFrog's picture

What's free about these markets when the kings of industry have every political and thus legal advantage over possible entry into the market?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:32 | 2686882 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

We haven't had free markets in this country since 1913.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 04:42 | 2686957 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

Indeed, the FED, a banking cartel whose very existence relies on the creation of new government debt, is the very antithesis of a free market as cartels are anti-competitive by definition.  So, to those who question free markets, we must always respond, elliminate the FED and the income tax and stop fixing the price of money via interest rate manipulation so the the unknown ideal of capitalism can finally be tested.

Capitalism is the worst possible economic system except for all the others.  Its main defect is that human beings controlled by the repilian part of their brains (i.e. the limbic system) are involved.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:02 | 2687020 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 We haven't had free markets in this country since 1913.

You're referring to the establishment of the federal Reserve here, I'm guessing.

I've been reading Rothbard's excellent Mystery of Banking and he outlines the history of US banking in his later chapters. It's pretty clear there was a lot of state intervention in the banking system well before The Fed came along, and even outside the periods when the US had its previous central banks. State and federal governments routinely allowed banks not to repay in specie after they'd inflated, while still demanding their debtors did so; laws made fiduciary expansion dependent on holding state & sovereign debt, etc.

There's been a running battle between 'we the people' and banking interests throughout the history of the US, unfortunately.... but that just means we can have a very clear view of exactly why regulation in the financial sector is ruinous.

And before LTER starts her ignorant rantings, no, I'm not arguing against laws punishing fraud or force.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:34 | 2687130 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Not just the federal reserve. The 16th and 17th amendments as well. Also, the gold standard and the Real Bills clearing system were destroyed a year later.

An evil, evil time.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:17 | 2686796 LowProfile
LowProfile's picture

How did all of you assholes miss this paragraph, and the subsequent ones!?!?

But what of the inequality in income that exists in today’s state-corporatist economy?  Did the 1% acquire its wealth solely through hard work?  The answer is hardly in many cases.  Though there are some innovative businessmen who became rich by providing new and better products, the sharp increase in income inequality over the past two decades is due to an economic phenomenon outside of normal market operations.  Krugman and Stiglitz rightfully point out that the greatest periods of income inequality in the United States were the late 1920s and the period since the mid-1990s.  What they fail to mention is that both these periods were not defined by capitalism run amok but by massive credit expansion.  This expansion in credit, aided and abetted by the Federal Reserve’s loose money policy, is the real culprit behind vast income inequality.  Economist George Reisman explains:

OH, U WAI KUEL GUYS JUST READ THE FIRST FEW LINES AND THEN U GOT IT ALL FIGGERED OUT, I SEEEEE...

YOU FUCKING LAZY SOCIALIST TWATS.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:31 | 2686818 Ben Dover
Ben Dover's picture

Actually, I read it all.

Money buys shit. And if you have enough money some of the shit you can buy is politcal support in shifting laws. If you apply enough cash you can repeal, say, Glass Steagal. And where does that get us? 2012.

What I said earlier about the Aynn Rand books holds up for a lot of books and the ideas they contain. Be it the Bible, the Communist Manifesto or the Wealth of Nations it looks good on paper. In real life? Not so much.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:29 | 2687045 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 Money buys shit. And if you have enough money some of the shit you can buy is politcal support in shifting laws. If you apply enough cash you can repeal, say, Glass Steagal. And where does that get us? 2012.

Exactly. So if you have a government involved in anything other than punishing force or fraud, and perhaps the supply of public goods like roads, policing and a rump national defence, then it can be hijacked by monied interests to engender government-backed cartels.

Hence the need for a strong but limited (in scope) government.

Glass Steagal slowed down the creation of credit by keeping depositor funds away from investment banking, but a far better solution (within the current fiat system) would be to remove government depositor protection... forcing depositors to choose whether they wanted to risk their savings in banks with opaque investment strategies in return for higher interest, or put their money into safer institutions.

Oh... and to let the so-called 'to big to fail' banks actually fail.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:01 | 2687072 BigJim
BigJim's picture

 What I said earlier about the Aynn Rand books holds up for a lot of books and the ideas they contain. Be it the Bible, the Communist Manifesto or the Wealth of Nations it looks good on paper. In real life? Not so much.

I haven't read Rand, or all of the bible, or Marx for that matter (and I'm willing to bet you haven't either)

But please please do tell us what works. A giant, beneficent government, regulating us all into happiness and prosperity? And one where the regulation, judicial, and academic systems won't be hijacked by monied interests, despite the fact that the more  the market is regulated, the more incentive there is to hijack them? That the more  the market is regulated, the more ignorant government apparatchiks need the effected industries to actually write the legislation, inviting further capture?

You're the utopian here, chum.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:48 | 2686892 NoClueSneaker
NoClueSneaker's picture

There is unwinding reel of used toilet paper with the same lines all over the world , with the same spin ... Sync.

OK, smartasses : you say that all the inequality comes through the looting, fraud and racketeering. When the some kind of "state" isn't capable to prosecute and punish the fraud, when the sheeple to old, too tired to do the right thing and do some lynching - what kind of instrument do we have to prevent complete destruction of  the world except the taxations  of the looters?

It's weird.

 

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:36 | 2686923 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

It's a kind of 'you can steal from me as long as you pay my mortgage' type of equalibrium

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 04:38 | 2686955 johnberesfordti...
johnberesfordtiptonjr's picture

 

 

Indeed, you are 100% correct. Libertarianism is largely a juvenile utopian fantasy that (paradoxically) has served the interests of our ruling oligarchy for the last 20 years or so. The life of Ayn Rand (real name “Alisa Rosenbaum” and a sort of unintentional godmother to Libertarianism) is an object lesson in the practical application of the concept. Every aspect of her psychopathic life disintegrated into vitriol, deceit, hypocrisy, self-destruction, and the devastation of those around her. At the apex of the Objectivist cult her considerably younger, married paramour and heir-apparent Nathanial Branden (real name “Nathan Blumenthal”) was unceremoniously made a non-person when it was discovered that he was also involved with an attractive “model” at the time.  And so it goes with these types of movements. They are complete and utter BS. 

Libertarianism has proved to be a great tool to get the American sheeple behind all sorts of oligarchic programs such as financial industry deregulation, anti-environmentalism, privatization (particularly social security), the sale of public assets, etc. A quick Google search will reveal their funding sources.  It’s a very effective technique with blue collar workers becoming anti-union (their all “thugs” dontcha know?), anti-pension (401Ks are just sooo much better), anti-environment (damn “tree huggers” are stopping us from becoming energy independent), the wealthy (capital gains/dividends/carried interest rich) deserve to pay lower taxes (on a percentage basis) then those who merely work for a living (they are the “job creators” and taxation is theft dontcha know?), etc.

In the end, they're so brain washed that they’ll go against their own interests. They will welcome their own impoverishment.

 

 

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:13 | 2687025 Intelligence_In...
Intelligence_Insulter's picture

Socialist drivel.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:52 | 2687067 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Libertariansim has it's founding in Murray Rothbard and similar minded Austrain economists. Ayn Rand was nothing but a single voice, one steeped in the need for government- more of an enlightened socialist- if such a thing exists. Rothbard became so disgusted with how the movement prostituted itself to gain political standing, he then put his efforts into a more refined definition of the idea: anarcho-capitalism.

All tools are neutral actors. It is the hand that wields them that decides how they will be used. blaming a tool for the final product is the sign of an immature mind.

There are sound economic arguments against unions, regulation, taxes and government. The use of socialism or fascism is merely debt slavery that reveals itself when the debt overwhelms the available collateral of a society. 

The way forward will not be utopian (who ever thinks that? It's like using the term conspiracy theory- the hallmark of the propagandist). Humans are not perfect. However, attempting to find justice in governmental systems that allow for the acquisition of power through funding is the height of imbecility.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:33 | 2687125 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Rothbard became so disgusted with how the movement prostituted itself to gain political standing, he then put his efforts into a more refined definition of the idea: anarcho-capitalism.

______________________

There can not be something liek anarcho capitalism.

Anarchy is the promise of no social order while capitalism can only exist with social orders that enforces property rights or something like that.

Another US citizen thinker who did nothing more than offuscation.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:27 | 2687288 Sean7k
Sean7k's picture

Do you enjoy ignorance? Is it just your state of mind? Anarchy has NEVER been defined as the promise of no social order, and that's over the last two hundred years. 

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:46 | 2687330 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Sean7k asked AnAnonymous:

Do you enjoy ignorance?

Enjoy it? He wallows in it. His entire pathetic existence has ignorance as its foundation.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 06:24 | 2686996 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

@ Dr Benway:

What a supershitty article. I almost wish LetthemeatRand could come here and rant at this guy a bit.

"yeah ok the 1% stole all your money, but you shouldn't demand it back, rather from here on out it will be no more stealing, mmkay?"

Guess what, Ludwig Mises institute, that solution will not fly, regardless of how much your rich crony donors want it to.

 

It is a mystery to me how you got this from the article!  Would you care to explain or are your thinking processes that compromised that you actually believe what you wrote?  One main point of the article was that the 1% use government to steal from the 99%.  I do not see Miller arguing for thieves keeping their criminal booty that the government helped them obtain, I see him advocating that the great enabler of crime, the government, be eliminated from the picture so that crime will  be thwarted. Specifically: regarding we, the 99% getting our stolen wealth returned to us, (restitution), out best shot at that would be free market justice/adjudication services. Or is your solution: for the mob to gain democratic power  so they can take property from others, (taxation), regardless as to weather it was justly obtained? Any system of "justice" that exists through judges being paid through criminal theft, (taxation), is going to be a tool of crime, not a tool for justice.  You want justice? Get rid of the criminal system that makes justice impossible for the 99% to obtain.  No ...., congress shall NOT have power to lay and collect taxes ... would be a good start.   And then deal with another big factor, think for a minute:   the limited liability that our government allows corporations to benefit from is a direct attack against personal property and the 99%'s power to obtain a just and proper restitution. Right to property is a demonstrable law of human interaction and must be protected and upheld, (including full restitution and related damages to restore ownership when a crime has occurred), if lasting prosperity is to prevail.  With respect to the genuine laws of human interaction, life liberty and property of individuals trumps everything else! The "state" advanced arguments used to justify limited liability "laws" will be clearly understood to be lies and propaganda of con-artists and criminals once actual primary, (or "natural"), "law" is understood for what it truly is. It would be more useful, I think, to refer to "laws" as a facts of nature, and to further observe that people cannot make "laws", they can only choose to cooperate (voluntary exchange) on one side of pre-existing natural law, or commit crimes against other individuals by being on the other side of those natural laws. 

 

Guess what, Ludwig Mises 

institute, that solution will not fly, ...


Your last sentence might be rational if the previous sentence was accurate. As things are you are just setting up a false straw man and then knocking it down. Either you are so mentally crippled that you cannot understand language  and you are reacting in an unconscious and mechanical manner that has been scripted for you from a dark origin, or you are deliberately distorting important points of the article for unstated purposes. Either way, you words serve the 1%, (the thieves frauds and murderers), and not the 99%.  

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:12 | 2686716 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

The Ludwig von Mises Institute is its own worst enemy. They present (sometimes very well) how unfair the current system is while at the same time defending all those who have become wealthy from it.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:31 | 2686739 Dr Benway
Dr Benway's picture

Yup, agree. And they never articulate exactly WHY the thiefs should be allowed to keep their stolen money going forward. Is it because it would just be too much trouble to get it back?

 

Also, they miss the one key reason for rising income inequality. The reason is the divorce of ownership and power. Since institutional investors have so much equity, and because the voting arrangements of companies are arranged the way they are, remuneration of executives is decided by a reciprocal boys' club and not by the true owners. The dumb money that pension funds and such have poured into the share market over the last 30 years has had two catastrophic effects: it has destroyed price discovery in the share market, and it has allowed executives to expropriate more and more remuneration.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:42 | 2686753 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

You never document the names of specific individuals who have stolen from you, the amount they've taken and how you propose to get money "back."

 

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:42 | 2686754 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

No one wants to have that discussion. This is yet another reason why we are passed the point of no return. Reset is the only sustainable way forward (as it will wipe out everyone's wealth).

In the mean time let's just have a big circle jerk of group Doublethink. A link is provided for some of you who need a refresher.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:46 | 2686763 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The belief that rich people are ripping you off and so you need the government who helps the rich people rip you off to get your money back for you is a fine example of Doublethink.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:49 | 2686764 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

What decade are you living in? Seriously? That fight was before 1913.

And where did I say government should be the means to recoup wealth?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:06 | 2686781 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

And where did I say government should be the means to recoup wealth?

 

So you agree with the author that taxes should not be raised?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:10 | 2686786 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Doesn't it really fucking matter? Do you really think raising them, lowering them, or keeping them the same matters at this point?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:23 | 2686806 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

To what where you refering when you accused the Mises Institute of ignoring "how unfair the current system is while at the same time defending all those who have become wealthy from it?" Were you not taking issue with the author's tax policy?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:28 | 2686811 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Nope. Didn't really care. Just observing their Doublethink.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:36 | 2686824 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Please provide an example of Doublethink promoted in this article.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:53 | 2686847 francis_the_won...
francis_the_wonder_hamster's picture

Yes, it does matter.  Reduce the amount of money the government has and you reduce the amount of harm it can do to all of us.  Pretty freakin simple.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:39 | 2686925 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

Umm they spend regardless of taxation - they just print. The tax code is about control, not revenue

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 11:24 | 2687734 odatruf
odatruf's picture

That, dark pools, is the true pile of shit in the middle of the room.  Starve the beast?  Fuck us; they'll feed themselves.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:48 | 2686933 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Reduce the amount of money the government has and you reduce the amount of harm it can do to all of us.

_____________________

Burst of sincerity here. The government state was not such an issue when it used to harm non human or sub human beings.

On the contrary, it was welcomed and glorified by 'Americans'.

Now, these times are different: some US citizen middle class are falling on the wrong side of the fence and therefore banning the government state has become a priority.

When they can not come to terms with, is there are plenty of 'Americans' who are on the right side of 'Americanism' and who do give a fuck who is on the wrong side of the banner, as they never did before.

But yeah, the government state has grown an issue for some US citizens who are less secure in their position in US citizen nations.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 04:57 | 2686963 John_Coltrane
John_Coltrane's picture

The solution to what you don't seem to understand is just malinvestment is what is missing in the current environment:  creative destruction.  Let me give you a concrete example that even a simpleton like youself might grasp.  In 2008 the government/FED should have allowed AIG, Fanny, Freddy, GM, citybank, goldman sacks and many other counterparties (including depositors foolish enough to how capital in these entities) to suffer the losses of their bad investment/managment decisions and all the bondholder/debtholders of those institutions should have suffered the  loss.  That's how you "get your money back"-though of course, it won't accrue to you which is apparently your main concern.  Malinvestment in say housing, FaceBook, GS, must be punished by failure on all income scales just as a forest fire allows new growth.  And who holds the bonds and equity in these entities? People with extra capital but a deficit of neurons-and many of them are quite wealthy.  (see, for example, all the fools who lost money in the Murdock ponzi)  Now, Get yourself a couple of neurons, make a synapse, and THINK ABOUT THIS.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:38 | 2686746 Anusocracy
Anusocracy's picture

The writer is not defending those who become wealthy through government actions.

Please (re)read the article.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:45 | 2686758 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Everyone is on the government tit in one way or another. Please (re)evaluate the current system or your understanding of it. That is, those with more wealth know how to milk it better.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:48 | 2686765 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Government produces nothing and can only redistribute wealth therefore it is not possible for everyone to be on the tit. Half of us are the tit the other half suck.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:53 | 2686767 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Borrowing from the future generations. Hate to break it to you, but we are all sucking.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:57 | 2686771 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

That's an accounting trick. You can't actually get goods and services transported to you from the future. Productive people in the here and now are creating the goods and services which people are currently consuming.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:04 | 2686772 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

And they are doing it because they believe their going to get goodies that will never come... It's called a Ponzi scheme.

False promises are being given to those few who are still currently productive. BTW, it doesn't have to be 50/50. Just whatever ratio keeps the whole think rolling along... for now.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:13 | 2686790 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

The solution to that problem is less regulation and taxation, not more just as the article states.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:24 | 2686800 dwdollar
dwdollar's picture

Just like that huh? Let me know when that passes CONgress.

Let me know when all those who are wealthy from lobbying CONgress voluntarily give up that lucrative industry.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:28 | 2686813 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

No, not "just like that." First outlets like the Mises Institute and Zero Hedge have to educate individuals as to their own rights and responsibilities and the value of a rational rather than emotional approach to economics.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:57 | 2686852 francis_the_won...
francis_the_wonder_hamster's picture

Crocket, great job with your posts on this thread.  I'm starting to get the slightest bit of optimism that the message is starting to get out at the local levels.....that's a start at least.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:16 | 2686870 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Thanks, Francis. Spread the word but first and foremost enjoy the intellectual freedom which you have granted to yourself. That's the real reward.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:34 | 2686883 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

I hate to break this to you but there are far too many people who wish to screw over other people for your dreams to have any traction. As soon as you educate 20-30 people they will simply band together to rape the sheep instead of wishing to enlighten them. How do you think government spawns in the first place?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:50 | 2686893 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

I hate to break this to you but there are far too many people who wish to screw over other people for your dreams to have any traction.

 

That's just you're religious attachment to the concept of Original Sin confounding your judgement. It is an awfully handy way of dehumanizing individuals so that you can exploit them with greater ease.

 

How do you think government spawns in the first place?

 

Are you suggesting that government is promoted by those who oppose big government while those who promote big government have no effect on the increasing size of government?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:06 | 2686904 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

History is full of examples... The King is dead, long live the King!

Study sociology. Many of the people that agree with you just want a reset so they get the chance to dominate.

That is why in one of my other comments to you I said you need to do this at the state level, abolish federal government and go from there.

You might want to toss out globalization, fiat and usury to give the system a fighting chance to survive a few generations

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:14 | 2686909 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Government produces nothing and can only redistribute wealth therefore it is not possible for everyone to be on the tit.

_______________

'Americans' have this knack of producing inconsistent thoughts and line them up one after the other.

By your own admissions in this same thread, governments produce something: they produce regulations that are bought by people who can.

It tends to religious faith when one keeps one faith in spite of multiple cracks, counter examples, reality check ups contradicting one's faith.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:03 | 2687229 Clowns on Acid
Clowns on Acid's picture

Don't worry..dickwad, you will understand in in about 20 to 30 years....if you are still a country.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:08 | 2687241 Clowns on Acid
Clowns on Acid's picture

Don't worry..dickwad, you will understand in in about 20 to 30 years....if you are still a country.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 07:14 | 2687010 Voluntary Exchange
Voluntary Exchange's picture

@dwdollar:

 

I think it is important for you to clearly understand what system is required in order for justice to prevail. Otherwise all your attempts at justice will just result in more of the same.  Until you, yourself,  understand that,  you will be powerless to obtain justice. I have seen NO ONE in LMI defend criminals being allowed to keep their criminal booty! As long as the present governmental system prevails there is a huge problem "fixing" things. You might just start to realize that the "system" is being emphasized at LMI for a very good reason! Please see my original response in this thread. 

Until you can understand the primacy of just possession of property obtained though honest means as the foundation of a stable system, you will never be in a position to decide who is justly wealthy and who is the dirty crook in possession of criminal booty especially through the help of the crime syndicate called "government".  First understand what "property" is and why "property" must be a primary idea/"law", then you can worry about who justly earned their "property" and who used theft, fraud, and criminal force to obtain things that are not justly theirs to posses. Property does not equal crime. How one obtains property is of crucial importance.  Understanding why gives you a foundation for building a better future. Not understanding is to ensure continued misery and human suffering.  Ceasing to organize crime by ceasing to create monopolies of criminal force called "governments" is a key step in the progress of humanity. The system must be based on "voluntary exchange" and not theft, fraud or criminal force: (power to tax, monopoly power to make "law", monopoly power to enforce).

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 08:35 | 2687132 midtowng
midtowng's picture

"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime." - Balzac

It's amazing that these so-called libertarians that wrote this article are really just apologists for the status-quo.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:25 | 2687279 sessinpo
sessinpo's picture

In the words of Clint Eastwood, in the role of William Munny, right before he kills little Bill Daggett: "Deserves got nothing to do with it."

Anytime one is taking advantage of a law, buying influence, taking advantage of market conditions, etc, they are fixing the game in their favor. We all like to complain about loopholes and tax breaks that the wealthy use, but use the same logic of the lower classes, such as the mortgage interest rate deduction and for some reason, its okay.

I say take away all loopholes and breaks for everyone at every level. Let's make things truly transparent because they are not. Thus the middle class and lower are being decieved by the suggestion the wealthy are taking tax breaks and loopholes while at the same time, so are the lower classes. As for "fixed" game, that is why I desire a simplified tax code and transparency - to remove those "fixes"

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 00:28 | 2686697 SME MOFO
SME MOFO's picture

This guy is an incoherent dickhead, another apologist for the pampered class. 

Try something original and tell us how to amend the situation where most people on this planet are fucked beyond belief from birth to death that doesn't include cutting taxes on the rich.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:09 | 2686784 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

Go back and read the article, you dimwit. It makes perfect sense. Do you have the IQ of a geranium???

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:34 | 2686822 SME MOFO
SME MOFO's picture

blah blah blah

"It is indiscernible from highway robbery"

This idea hardly spans the criticism of government and taxation, especially when the entire notion of ownership is a shared ideation made possible only by tacit or explicit agreement, or by distributed violence to those who won't play along. 

There is no such thing as "ownership of things", there is only an ongoing pattern of behavior where other humans are controlled in their disposition toward those things. This article has confounded language, the things language describes, and behavior into a dog's breakfast topped off by the baby-talk equivalence of taxes and theft.

The confused infantile ramblings are typical smokescreens to avoid actually doing anything about how much it sucks to be a human right now for most folks on the planet.

There is a more powerful metaphysics of morals orthogonal to the nattering nabobs where every article concludes with a whine about cutting taxes.

As an aside, I always thought you were an idiot anyway

 

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:39 | 2686830 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

In other words you aspire to possess the IQ of a geranium.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:40 | 2686831 Buckaroo Banzai
Buckaroo Banzai's picture

"There is no such thing as 'ownership of things'"???

Holy shit, we've got a real live Marxist here, boys!!

You guys suck balls.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 01:47 | 2686837 SME MOFO
SME MOFO's picture

"Holy shit, we've got a real live Marxist here, boys!!

You guys suck balls."

 

We view the proposition as proven, the defense rests

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:28 | 2686878 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Individuals own their own bodies. If individuals own their own bodies and they use their bodies to create material goods then those goods belong to the individual,

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:39 | 2686886 SME MOFO
SME MOFO's picture

I see what you tried to do there.

It makes me feel a bit sad for you, demonstrating the rudimentary machinery with which you have to work.

Do you want to talk later if we all see the same color when we call something "red"?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:59 | 2686898 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

 

Do you want to talk later if we all see the same color when we call something "red"?

 

A difference which makes no difference makes no difference. If I see red differently than you do but we avoid crashing our cars into each other because we can each comprehend what the red light is indicating then it makes no difference if we see the color red in somewaht different tones. You can try to make the world and its inhabitants all disappear in a fog of pseudo-intellectual mumbo jumbo but that just makes it easier for those who have a definite and determined plan to confiscate your wealth and freedom.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 02:40 | 2686887 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

And what stops the robber barons from rockerfellering your free market into their monopolies?

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:02 | 2686902 CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

When Rockefeller entered the market kerosene cost $2.00 a gallon. By the time Standard Oil was broken for the crime of controlling 64% of the industry the price had dropped to 10 cents. This enabled people to make productive use of night time hours. Children studied, women managed their household accounts, men kept up with current events and the entire family could interact in a lighted environment at very low cost for the first time in human history.

But of course that makes you angry.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:11 | 2686907 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Nope. It allowed to free time so people can consume their environment more.

US citizens can not factor in that their so called production is consumption and usually introduce it as being self sustainable as in producing more than consuming, which is an aberration.

In the end, what is introduced as the path to salvation is actually the path to damnation as it is generated more consumption of a finite world.

But hey, US citizenism is as US citizen does.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:00 | 2687219 Clowns on Acid
Clowns on Acid's picture

Not just consume dickwad. But also to spend time with family, volunteering, and playing sport.

Things that you can only hope for at this stage in China.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 09:49 | 2687339 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

That's why he blobbed up and moved to France.

Wed, 08/08/2012 - 03:45 | 2686929 dark pools of soros
dark pools of soros's picture

You showed your cards and stripes in that one

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!