How Govt. Ruined The Movies

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I thought some here might be interested in this article:

http://mises.org/story/3437

During my downtime, I like to use the free online library at the Mises Institute to study up on Austrian economics, banking, business,the monetary system (I run my own business, so this naturally interests me), etc...

Interesting opinions.

[Joel Kaye]

OMG. The gov't ruined movies by allowing competition. That article is entirely opinion. He just makes assertions as if they were fact.

The number of great movies produced before the 40s is nowhere near the number of great movies produced after the 40s. A whole lot of crap was made in the 30s and 40s too.

And frankly, for all intents and purposes the major motion picture business currently is a cartel. Try to get wide theatrical distribution without the support of a major studio's distribution arm. I believe it's currently impossible. They own theatrical distribution in reality though they skirt the letter of the law.

If you want to take the position that the Sherman Antitrust laws are no good, fine... you might like Saudi Arabia better than America though. And there would be no RED camera because there would have long ago been formed a "Movie Camera Cartel with a closed distribution system" - which would be terrific for consumers. And there would have been no Oakley sunglasses for the same reason.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I agree. Technology ultimately did more to open up the studio system than the government.

Although personally I kind of like the idea of the old studio system. Instead of a free for all it was more like regular employment. Let people focus on doing what they're good at: making movies instead of fighting the rat race that is freelance work and agents.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Anti trust laws do not open competition, they stifle it. Think about what anti-trust really is: its closing off areas of the free market to enterprises. How on earth is that supporting competition? True competition has not govt. restrictions. "Monopolies" are an interesting thing, who on earth forces you to watch a movie when you can go watch TV, read a book, or ski? When TV starts stealing movie box office receipts for example, that "cartel" won't last long, in fact it can open a chance for someone else to come in and take over by producing better films. A pure free market is 100% competitive.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I agree. Technology ultimately did more to open up the studio system than the government.

Companies like RED are great examples of free the free market in action, not a great example of govt. intervention. Seriously. Look at it, its pure competitive force changing the market, not some lawmaker in DC. Would you be happy if the govt. said Red couldn't leap into the stills market? How about a ban on direct sales because it "hurts" distribution stores (thus raising the price of Red products, possibly putting them out of your reach)? Believe me, I could go on and on about how people who demonize free markets and free society are constantly benefiting from it, yet not realizing. Ironic.

[Liam Hall]

A pure free market is 100% competitive.
No it's not. Quite the reverse. Look at the music business; it's littered with companies that were bought up by the majors because they were taking too much market share.

[M Most]

Anti trust laws do not open competition, they stifle it. ... A pure free market is 100% competitive.

Well, then, I hope you're happy with the ultimate result of a "pure free market", which is the global meltdown we're now in the middle of.

Capitalism is a system that is deeply steeped in the most primal of human tendencies - greed. Unfettered greed leads to a situation in which a very few big dogs become the biggest dogs on the block, and ultimately wipe out everyone else. That's how we got to where we are. Every major industry is basically controlled by no more than 3 companies - and in some cases, those 3 companies are, shall we say, closely cooperating with each other. That's how you get to the point where companies are "too big to fail." And that's how you bring financial ruin.

I really don't know how you can say what you just did at the very moment in history when we're seeing blatant proof of just how wrong it is.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I must add, to keep a balanced view of things, that there are many powers granted by govt. to companies that do NOT occur in a natural free market. A great example is the ability to incorporate and essentially not be personally responsible for a companies actions, even thought the human owner(s) makes them.

Just some food for thought.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Capitalism is a system that is deeply steeped in the most primal of human tendencies - greed.

And somehow big government is devoid of greed?

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Well, then, I hope you're happy with the ultimate result of a "pure free market", which is the global meltdown we're now in the middle of.


I can't resist responding to this. We DON'T have a pure free market, we have aspects of it, which is very different from what you assert. Look, the issues we face are huge, and you can't just look at one part, you have to see the big picture. Govt. is the reason were here. Why? Here's a major reason: Govt. currently controls the money supply (The Federal Reserve), that comes with enormous powers. Think about that. Ever hear about economic "bubbles"? The root cause is always some form or govt. manipulation of the markets via the money supply, it could be artificially low interest rates, inflation, even a made up cause influencing a miss allocation of resources. In the end, these melt downs are actually the free market fighting back, its called a correction. Corrections can be painful events, I don't hide that, but the need for correction was caused by govt. manipulation in the first place. I'm not a "corporation shill" either, even companies are to blame, but its because of the unnatural powers govt. grants them. No matter how you look at it, you always wind up at the same spot, which is govt. being the root cause. I could go into more detail (I've done a lot of study to say the least), but I digress.

[jpp]

No matter how you look at it, you always wind up at the same spot, which is govt. being the root cause

The "government" you decry reflects the will of business interests. It make no sense to insist on a distinction between government and the monopoly financial institutions you prefer not to regulate. Look at the Federal Reserve Bank of NY, for example, which was asleep for the last few years, with disastrous consequences. The so-called "public representatives" were all CEOs who were cashing in on the securitization boom. And Goldman Sachs has had a lock on the Treasury department for years, which was also cashing in. This is what the so-called free market provides.

Libertarian paradises may be grand in theory, but you need only refer to the "business climate" in third world nations, where lassez-faire economics naturally plays out. Not many people would voluntarily live under such a system, which is probably why Grover Norquist and William Kristol don't move to Nigeria or Guatemala to enjoy the good life. Far better to be employed by the Republican welfare system for failed prophets and politicians, who can always count on a job with Rupert Murdoch or one of the billionaire-endowed think-tanks, where they can promote imaginary free-markets while remaining immune from the consequences.

[Tom Lowe]

The Mises Institute is a tremendous resource online. I often download their audio of speeches and conferences, and listen on my ipod when I'm camping or whatever.

If anyone is interested in learning more about economics, this speech by Peter Schiff to the Mises Inst below is an entertaining and enlightening one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

It will certainly dispel any myths about the meltdown being caused by "pure capitalism."

This article on Hollywood is sort of a mixed bag, though. On the one hand, I agree that busting up the studio's control of its own theaters was probably unnecessary and most certainly harmful to the studios. But then the author gets into a bunch of nonsense about "community decency" or whatever. I have no time for people decrying a lack of "moral values" in films. That should be left up to us, the viewer, to decide.

The quality of movies has gone downhill for one reason -- the audience has poor taste, IMO. When "Big Momma's House 2" drove a good movie like "The New World" out of my local theater, that tells me that the average viewer wants stupid movies, not quality.

It's interesting that HDNet is sort of reviving the old studio system with their films -- which are financed and produced by HDNet, then screened on HDNet cable assets and their own theaters simultaneously.

[M Most]

I could go into more detail (I've done a lot of study to say the least)

Maybe so. But it doesn't mean your conclusions are correct.

There's theory and there's stark reality. The deregulation/small government push that started with Reagan and has continued through 3 other administrations has resulted in a rather catastrophic failure, not a minor correction. The notion that eliminating regulation encourages competition has proven to be completely false in practice, allowing the biggest players to become essentially the only players. This has occurred across many industries, not just the financial services industry. The most famous antitrust action in US history was the breakup of AT&T, which, although it had its social downside, resulted in competition in the communications industry that lowered prices to consumers by a vast amount. And now, gee, guess who's back. And bigger than they ever were. Let's see how that works out over time.

You can believe what you want. So can I. Clearly, you will never convince me of the truth of your argument. And vice versa.

[jpp]

The TV networks are a surviving cartel, and not many would point to network programming as a measure of the excellence of monopolies.

HDNET is an interest example: hard to know whether, ultimately, this development is good or bad. One thing we can say, however: Mark Cuban is not a David Selznick. It's hard to see how a visionless company is going to save the world. The fact that he owns the only indie movie chain in the country can't be encouraging.

[Tom Lowe]

HDNet is only a partial resurrection of the big studio system in their heyday. HDNet does not control actors or crew under long-term, exclusive contracts. It would be extremely difficult to revive the full system.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

The Mises Institute is a tremendous resource online. I often download their audio of speeches and conferences, and listen on my ipod when I'm camping or whatever.

If anyone is interested in learning more about economics, this speech by Peter Schiff to the Mises Inst below is an entertaining and enlightening one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgMclXX5msc

It will certainly dispel any myths about the meltdown being caused by "pure capitalism."

This article on Hollywood is sort of a mixed bag, though. On the one hand, I agree that busting up the studio's control of its own theaters was probably unnecessary and most certainly harmful to the studios. But then the author gets into a bunch of nonsense about "community decency" or whatever. I have no time for people decrying a lack of "moral values" in films. That should be left up to us, the viewer, to decide.

The quality of movies has gone downhill for one reason -- the audience has poor taste, IMO. When "Big Momma's House 2" drove a good movie like "The New World" out of my local theater, that tells me that the average viewer wants stupid movies, not quality.

It's interesting that HDNet is sort of reviving the old studio system with their films -- which are financed and produced by HDNet, then screened on HDNet cable assets and their own theaters simultaneously.

I agree, it is a bit mixed bag on the content thing, but still, what I find ironic, is that those who oppose govt. censorship of ideas and morals are ok with what is essentially "economic censorship" (anti-trust). I have read the rebuttals, and they are full of myths, etc. It's hard to address all the flaws I'm seeing and not write a book here on the forum, as the rabbit hole goes VERY deep. I'm sure you know what I mean Tom!

[David Rasberry]

I miss the small art house cinemas that proliferated during the 70's, but were essentially locked out of distribution by the studios and the large multiplex chains for first run films and wound up going bust. Now we have 50 screens in town all showing the same 8 to 10 major releases with little variety.
Hopefully with Red Ray and the ever dropping prices for decent HD projectors we may see a whole different distribution model emerge for indies. But public (bad) taste is still the lowest common denominator determinant of what succeeds.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

The TV networks are a surviving cartel, and not many would point to network programming as a measure of the excellence of monopolies.

I addressed this earlier. If a so called "monopoly" fails its customers, it FAILS, as in it looses the customers, and could go out of business. This aspect alone really tears up the argument that monopolies even truly exist, as the traditional view is that they cannot be beaten, never go out of business, never ever have competition, etc. In reality, there has never been an example of a big company having 100% market control. How does a "studio monopoly" have control over, lets say, all entertainment? They don't. Options always exist. Go play chess, watch youtube videos of people walking into walls, shoot your own movies even.

[jpp]

If a so called "monopoly" fails its customers, it FAILS, as in it looses the customers, and could go out of business.

You mean like Microsoft, which has been failing its "customers" (read: prisoners) for years? Or a bank which pays 1% on a 3 year CD, but charges 30% on credit card interest?

[Chris Nuzzaco]

You mean like Microsoft? Or a bank which pays 1% on 3 year CD, but charges 30% for credit card interest?

Do you use a Mac? I use a Boxx PC and run Ubuntu Linux. I hear Google employees all use a custom flavor or Ubuntu Linux. And your point is?

If Microsoft has not fallen down yet, maybe, JUST MAYBE, they are doing something right and able to retain customers because of it. Ever hear of their new OS Windows Seven? It's a response to the abysmal failure of Vista, and you could have beta tested it for free a few months back.

Who's forcing you to buy crappy CD's or not pay your credit card on time?

PS: The reason you would want to buy a CD is to fight inflation.. oh wait... hold on... our government creates that inflation via the the Federal Reserve. Well then, makes you think. I don't mean to sound like a punk or anything, but sometimes this rabbit hole and the terrible misinformation about our monetary system just get under my skin.

[jpp]

Do you use a Mac? I use a Boxx PC and run Ubuntu Linux. I hear Google employees all use a custom flavor or Ubuntu Linux. And your point is?

My point is, companies which make terrible products get very rich, when the market operates the way you want it to.

And yes I do own a Mac, as well as a Windows machine. The choice is between a lousy operating system and lousy application software on the one hand, and a good operating system but expensive proprietary hardware on the other. So much for the free market.


If Microsoft has not fallen down yet, maybe, JUST MAYBE, they are doing something right

You're correct. What they're doing "right" is running a successful monopoly, thanks to the free-market dynamics you want more of.


Who's forcing you to buy crappy CD's or not pay your credit card on time?

Nobody. But if your free market theory was correct, no bank, much less a huge bank, could behave this way. But the banks do behave this way. Could it be that something's wrong with your theory?

[Tom Lowe]

I have read the rebuttals, and they are full of myths, etc. It's hard to address all the flaws I'm seeing and not write a book here on the forum, as the rabbit hole goes VERY deep. I'm sure you know what I mean Tom!

Yeah. I mean, when people are saying that the meltdown is due to "unbridled libertarianism" they have it almost entirely backwards. It's not possible to change their minds on a camera forum like this. All you can do is point them to a friendly speech or video or book or something that might interest them enough to look into these issues further.

Another place to look, if you are interested in learning about the real cause of the current mess we are in, is Tom Woods' book "Meltdown." When you have a central bank pumping out money at 1% or even 0% interest rates to Americans, who at the peak of the housing bubble actually had a NEGATIVE savings rate of -6%, it's clear that there is a problem. Low interest rates can only be the result of savings, like, say, 15% or 20%. So it's totally impossible to have 1% interest rates in a country with no savings at all!

On the other hand, I think there is a mainstream argument to made that within our current system, there does need to be smarter regulation. Credit default swaps, for example, should have fallen under the same regulatory umbrella as insurance, since that's what they are. The reason we are bailing out AIG to the tune of a hundred billion dollars is that they took incredibly wild bets on "insurance" speculation, without the assets to back up those bets.

Our whole system is a total mess. A house of cards. And as jpp and others are pointing out, it's also very corrupt. Wall Street just fleeced Americans of trillions of dollars, and the government is getting ready to fleece them of trillions more through inflation.

This is why I am keeping up my contacts in China. :thumbsup:

[Zack Birlew]

Beh, things could be worse. Oh wait, they are! Hollywood is too closed off for its own good really. All it would take would be to have film schools actually mean something. Yes, like almost every other profession, you should have to go to school for it. Of course, nobody can stop a self taught person's success if they win an Oscar, win at a film festival, network their way up, etc. All I'm saying is that if Hollywood took more involvement in setting up film schools to be their training ground then they would have a steady stream of talent coming in rather than going through the muck of wishful hopefuls to find someone with real experience. Their stream of resumes could be cut down significantly and, of course, they would have to have people patrolling film festivals and the like for new talent as well. What is hurting Hollywood is that they have too many people trying to rush in through the doors and the only thing they can do is close them off and stick with who they have already. The theatrical circuit itself is too closed off and, really, there should be some sort of law made to break that up or someone needs to open up their own movie theatre chain dedicated to alternative films, not junk, but the films that get passed up at Cannes or Sundance that everyone is surpised about when they don't get distribution. They could also be open to indie films as well but, like normal movie theatres, it all depends on what the owner wants to show in their theatre, but hey, at least that's a workable system for indies rather than hoping for a distributor to come along and pick them up or having to do one of those film tour distribution methods where they send out several people across the country to show the film in theatres one by one.

In any case, Hollywood needs to get better organized and establish some sort of system that works to help young talented filmmakers enter into the business smoothly rather than have them waste years of their lives desperately trying to work their way through the ranks just to get in. That's sounds more like counter productive business practices to me, especially for film. Look at J.J. Abrams, there was an article in Hollywood Reporter about how some people believe that he is the next Steven Spielberg, well, the article listed all of their career achievements and compared them to one another and stated that it's nice to believe that he is the next Spielberg but, based on his resume, he hasn't made the mark to match Steven's massive run, so he is instead "the first J.J. Abrams". I read the article and I didn't pay much attention to it because I was too busy looking at their ages. J.J. Abrams is 42 and Steven Spielberg is 62. Now, looking back at J.J. Abrams, he was in his twenties as a writer and almost in his thirties when he first directed. All I could think as I read the article was why, with all of the advances in technology and the knowledge base modern filmmakers have these days, why is there a striking lack of young directors? Why would Hollywood not take advantage of all of that raw creativity and passion a young director could have? Granted, I've seen my fair share of wannabe's and people with a creativite sense about as interesting and original as the callous under my big left toe. However, I've seen some filmmakers that have great ideas and talent that could stand up in Hollywood but they haven't gone anywhere career-wise. So, what's the big deal? Creativity, whether we like it or not, fades with age. Haven't we had enough depressing mid-life crisis films? Films based on comic books being done by people that have little to no experience with the source material? It's just ridiculous. However, I can understand the logic behind it as some young talented director won't have the experience to be able to do what, strictly based on the visual spectacle aspect, what Michael Bay has done for "Transformers". That's why I say, instead of letting people toil a good portion of their lives away in the mailroom or scraping by on the indie circuit, why not do the simple thing of supporting and helping film school matter? They can be given all of the chances and experience they need within a reasonable amount of time. Some will stand out and that's the whole point, just like any other eduactional program. I'm at Chapman University right now and I'm in the grad program. The weaknesses I see is that they're treating the grad program like the undergrad program. The grad program should be strictly for people who majored or minored in film in their undergrad. Everyone else should be relegated to the undergrad program. It doesn't make sense why a history major or architecture major should be able to enter a graduate film program. Do they not realize that after graduating this person will be able to say that they can teach film? Well, what about the person that has their BFA and MFA in film? Shouldn't they be the better qualified person to teach? No, that's not the case at all. Not only is that an issue but it slows down the whole program as well to train these people to get up to the same level, which should have been done in the undergrad program with everybody else. If they made that change, then that opens up all kinds of possibilities. We wouldn't need any additonal film history as that was handled in undergrad, we wouldn't need any more introductory film production classes as we would already know how to make our films from the ground up based on our undergrad course work. What that leaves is advanced production courses where we actually make real films and not strict exercise films and we can further our emphasis, wherever that is, and actually have something to show when all is said and done. Heck, there could even be classes where we make feature films, there's enough time in a semester to do so, if not stretching it to a year round course, and it would all work in our favor and towards the school as well. Imagine if the film won a film festival or made a student academy award nomination, how cool would that be? As it is now, only the directors get to make the films and they don't make that many at all, just two small "cycle films" and then their thesis which is basically a higher budget cycle film. No features, just shorts, and they can't check out equipment from the school without a directing teacher backing them up in case they wanted to do something independently on their own. It's really counter intuitive and, if they end up making a bad short or if it just doesn't turn out the way they wanted it, which happens quite a bit it seems, then they're stuck with that film along with a massive load of debt when it's all said and done and with a degree that practically means nothing to the industry as a whole. Wow, film school, great investment huh? But it could be and that's what gets me. If only there were a push to make these changes, then the industry wouldn't be in the state it's in with a massive lack of originality and creativity and with displeased movie goers all around making jokes and losing interest at disturbingly rapid rates.

[jpp]

The main objection to the libertarian view is that it's fundamentally utopian, that society is far too complex and power relations far too unequal to allow these forces to play out and expect anything but misery and destruction.

The theory of government doesn't necessarily demand that we make everyone rich, or offer rewards strictly on competitive advantage. The mercantile model of human life is not one that's universally embraced. On the contrary, the market model which prevails in the U.S. and Britain is the exception, not the norm, in modern industrial democracies. And that model doesn't necessarily promote excellence. Most successful businessmen are not geniuses or visionaries. Rather, they're bankers who buy mortgage securities without bothering to inquire what's inside.

There *are* countries which have done a far better job than we have, at distributing wealth. If "distributing wealth" offends an ideology, I'm sorry. But there are higher goals, in democratic societies of hundreds of millions of people, than the freedom to get rich quickly. Democracy cannot function with huge disparities of wealth. We've seen what happens when powerful interests buy government and run it as they please. To the degree government is responsive to citizens, government intrusion in daily life is better than the intrusion of big business. But you're going to have to chose one or the other.

[Joel Kaye]

Most successful business men are not geniuses or visionaries. Rather, they're bankers who buy mortgage securities without bothering to inquire what's inside.


And those bankers give a portion of their profits to Congress so they'll be protected by a bailout and avoid prosecution for negligence or wrongdoing.

When corporations control gov't and are not accountable for wrongdoing you get what we've got.

Currently big business owns and runs gov't. You have to regulate both effectively. Bad regulation kills competition but good regulation prevents forseeable disasters. That's why these conversations are impossible to view in a black and white way. It's not black and white.

[Joseph Ward]

Most people in the U.S. don't understand how the Federal Reserve or Fractional Reserve Banking works and how Federal Income Taxes pay off the Interest to that. I understand how it can get confusing but I don't understand why people in general don't question anything, that's not intelligence but...

Well back to topic, I think overall creativity is flourishing now and not just back in the "Golden Era". Technology is what is allowing competition to thrive not a hollywood cartel or government.

[GlennChan]

My point is, companies which make terrible products get very rich, when the market operates the way you want it to.
There are companies out there that deserved to be criticized for truly bad products or services (most financial products and "innovations", companies which sell extended warranties, etc.). I don't think Microsoft is one of them.

If Windows/MS-DOS sucked, they never would have blown past Apple in market share and became the market leader.

Microsoft generally has to make good products to succeed. Xbox, its search engine, Office, Zune, etc. - all these products have to be good, or else Microsoft will not make a lot of money off them. On some of its products, it loses money. They're not a company that can get away with selling crap.

If you were to run Microsoft as ethically as possible, I think it would look very similar to what it looks like today. Their prices are reasonable (they aren't trying to squeeze the market), shareholders are getting value on their investment, they are trying to make useful products + services, there is little deception in how they sell their products, they aren't selling dubious products like extended warranties, copy protection is reasonable, they bundle a lot of free and useful software into Windows (web browser, movie maker, etc.), etc. etc.

[Liam Hall]

All it would take would be to have film schools actually mean something. Yes, like almost every other profession, you should have to go to school for it. Of course, nobody can stop a self taught person's success if they win an Oscar, win at a film festival, network their way up, etc.
There's more to life than school. You'll learn that in a few years...

[Jay Voutour]

Govt. currently controls the money supply (The Federal Reserve)...

Most people in the U.S. don't understand how the Federal Reserve or Fractional Reserve Banking works...

I could be wrong here (so please correct me if I am), but I thought the Federal Reserve was privately owned and operated (i.e. NON-governmental) and that about the only thing "federal" about it was the name...


...I have no time for people decrying a lack of "moral values" in films. That should be left up to us, the viewer, to decide.

The quality of movies has gone downhill for one reason -- the audience has poor taste, IMO...

Agreed 100% on both counts. The latter portion rings true especially in NA I think.


I miss the small art house cinemas that proliferated during the 70's, but were essentially locked out of distribution by the studios and the large multiplex chains for first run films and wound up going bust...

Me too. One of my favourite places to watch movies is BLOOR CINEMA in Toronto. It has a balcony, an outdoor ticket booth and is a venue for TIFF, HotDocs FF, JFF...I think it's safe to say that the place is not going anywhere any time soon.

OTOH, there were two arthouse theatres near my place that closed down during the super-ultra-mega-multiplex obsession in the early 90's. One got turned into a convenience store (the screen - still there - is permanently plastered with ads for Snapple) and the other was actually saved by the community (yours truly included) from being demo'd for a parking lot. After some much needed reno, it was re-opened two years ago. It still shows CheeseFest (50's, 60's, 70's b-movies) every 2nd Thursday of every month. :)
________
Asian amateur (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/110/amateur/videos/1)

[Liam Hall]

Hollywood movies suck because Hollywood studios are run by bean counters.

They like lowest common denominator movies and rule by committee. As a bloke once said "a camel is a horse designed by committee".

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I could be wrong here (so please correct me if I am), but I thought the Federal Reserve was privately owned and operated (i.e. NON-governmental) and that about the only thing "federal" about it was the name...


It is technically private, however that is highly debatable as the President and Congress appoint its leader... so how is that private? Again, rabbit hole.

[jpp]

If Windows/MS-DOS sucked, they never would have blown past Apple in market share and became the market leader.

Microsoft generally has to make good products to succeed. Xbox, its search engine, Office, Zune, etc. - all these products have to be good, or else Microsoft will not make a lot of money off them.

Talk about circular arguments.... I thought the whole beauty of being a monopoly is that you don't have to answer to customers and can sell them crap. Your cable company doesn't answer to customers, your internet provider doesn't answer to customers, your gas company doesn't answer to customers and Microsoft doesn't have to answer to customers, because there's nowhere else to go. It's a great business model, the best anywhere.


they aren't selling dubious products like extended warranties

A good thing, too, since not a day passes without a Microsoft Windows security alert. Any kind of warranty, extended or otherwise, would bankrupt Microsoft in about 10 days.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

We had a free market in our 5th grade. With class dollars. No regulation.

A friend and I completely monopolized the economy and bankrupted all the other students.

If I wanted to destroy competition. A lack of regulation or rules is the fastest way to do that.

If I have a billion dollars. And you have 100k. I can sell my product at under cost until you go out of business. Bam. Competition gone.

What if Sony decided that movies shot on RED couldn't be burned to Blu-Ray or shown in theaters where Sony movies shown? What if Sony payed Universal, WB and Fox to follow suit? Why wouldn't they? It's free money. They don't care what camera their work is shot on.

It's regulation that keeps RED in the market. If Sony was really pure free market then they could destroy RED's future in feature film production over night.

[Jay Voutour]

It is technically private, however that is highly debatable as the President and Congress appoint its leader... so how is that private? Again, rabbit hole.

Ah, didn't know that. Cronyism, perhaps? (<<< SARCASM :thumbsup:)

I learned almost everything I know from movies. :D
________
SUBARU EF ENGINE (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Subaru_EF_engine)

[Tom Lowe]

What if Sony decided that movies shot on RED couldn't be burned to Blu-Ray?

Then Red can put them out on RedRAY, with far superior technology. (Thanks, Graeme! :sifone:) The market can sort that out just fine. It didn't take government interference to solve the HD DVD vs Bluray battle. It just took huge bribes from Sony to the major studios. Now Sony is nearly broke. They gambled heavily on Bluray, and are probably living in terror of the prospect that download distribution or something like a RedRAY codec could blow their whole business model out of the water for the next two decades. The market can pick winners and losers far better than the government can.

[Joseph Ward]

I could be wrong here (so please correct me if I am), but I thought the Federal Reserve was privately owned and operated (i.e. NON-governmental) and that about the only thing "federal" about it was the name...

Correct.

[Joe G.]

"Govt. currently controls the money supply (The Federal Reserve), that comes with enormous powers. Think about that. "

I have, and you're technically flat wrong. The "Federal Reserve" (sic, sic) is neither federal nor a reserve. It is a private, for-profit corporation. Abolishing it, and its parasitic siphoning of the nation's wealth should be job one.

Your dogmatic libertarianism is simplistic, at best. These are large issues. And, probably the discussion will be shut down pretty swiftly.

Bottom line: a corrupt federal government, corrupt beyond anyone's ability to even comprehend the depth and depravity of it all is our main problem. This problem is behind most other problems we currently face.

The oligarchs have a stranglehold on power. Through media manipulation (and endless propaganda), they have wrapped up the control of the empire, so that democratic challengers can not get anywhere. Once they have secured this unaccountable power, they are comfortable exploiting it by the ongoing raping and pillaging in the financial sector we now witness. What are you gonna do about it?

Nothing.

[jpp]

Correct.

Sorry, but no. The Federal Reserve is known as a quasi-governmental institution, with elements of private governance. It's not a government agency, but it's not a private business either. In practice, the Federal Reserve is very unlikely to thwart presidential directives. And the president appoints the Fed chief.

[Andrew Kimery]

Then Red can put them out on RedRAY, with far superior technology. (Thanks, Graeme! :sifone:) The market can sort that out just fine.
If the market could always sort things out just fine no one would've gone to the trouble to write and pass regulation legislation.


-A

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Then Red can put them out on RedRAY, with far superior technology. (Thanks, Graeme! :sifone:) The market can sort that out just fine.

You needed to read the following sentences. They also talked Universal, WB and Fox into going exclusive. If you want to watch indie RED movies then you could use redray. But if you want to watch real movies then you have to use Sony Exclusive Blu-Ray.

Content is king. If they could buy their way into a monopoly on the big budget, high gross films then they can absolutely destroy anyone else's chance to get a screening.

This sort of thing isn't speculation. It's based on past businesses who were broken up by the government.

WE DON'T NEED TO GUESS ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD HAPPEN. It DID happen/It HAS happened/It WILL happen. This isn't rocket science or even really open for debate. It's as well proven as gravity or earth's curvature. An unregulated market results in monopolies which destroy competition. And it's how anyone with half a mind in business would operate if they had the opportunity to legally do it. Because it works. REALLY really well.

Sometimes a monopoly make sense (Who needs two sewage lines running into every house?) but lots of time people are pinned into monopolies due to a lack of resources. Who has the money to buy two different kinds of televisions? Sony could pay samsung a shitton of money to only play back big studio movies. Since 99.9% of the market are distributed by Sony, WB, Fox and Universal consumers wouldn't be willing to spend extra money on a product which only delivered tiny unestablished players' movies. The cost of entry to create demand for your product before being established would be far too high. When there is no room for a small entrepreneur to compete then you see the death of innovation.

So yeah. RED could release: REDRay and REDVision (TV). But if it didn't play a big studio movie that's a huge expenditure that plays almost no content (*cough DVHS*).

[Tom Lowe]

I have no problem with breaking up monopolies, but such power should be used sparingly and only in very clear-cut cases. Whether or not the studio/theater system needed to be dismantled by the government in the 1940s is open to debate, strictly on the merits of the cases. I don't know enough about the details to really get into it here. Just on the surface, I don't see why the independent theaters could not compete. And there was already competition from rival studios, I'm assuming. So where is the monopoly? The details of this are probably very involved. Gavin, you are on the opposite of the political spectrum from me. You seem to believe in big government, and I believe in small government. So it's unlikely that we will see eye to eye on issues related to the scope of government. On issues of civil liberties, for example, we would probably agree on many things.

[Yannick Hagman]

Free market is self-regulating. But now we are in a time where big companies don't die if they make mistakes. I guess it is a very dangerous thing that could lead to severe damage. Only the feature will show how this will end up. Like life, there is a point where every company makes a mistake and dies. It's a natural process and there shouldn't be any intervention at all.


Kongō Gumi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi) was the oldest company ever.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Man, more of this monopoly baloney, go back and read my prior comments on them, I'm tired of repeating the same thing and watching people blatantly ignore the facts of life: options will always exist in a free market.

So what if YOU can't start a company that competes with Sony, but don't assume others like Jim couldn't, and don't assume he needed "govt. help" to do it. I think Jim would find that offensive actually.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Free market is self-regulating. But now we are in a time where big companies don't die if the make mistakes. I guess it is a very dangerous thing that could lead to severe damage. Only the feature will show how this will end up. Like life, there is a point where every company makes a mistake and dies. It's a natural process.


Kongō Gumi (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kong%C5%8D_Gumi) was the oldest company ever.

You know, and I've said this many times in this thread and seen it ignored, companies HAVE been given powers that the free market does not give them. So the next time your ticked off about business leaders getting away with all kinds things you don't like, just remember, it was your precious big govt. that allowed it to happen, by granting them the abilities they have to skirt all kinds of personal accountability.

All right, now lets watch the big govt. guys ignore this fact.

[jpp]

Cardmaverick,

Can you name a single prosperous country, at any time in history, that's implemented your free-market theories and thrived on them for more than a few years? Until recently, folks used to cite Iceland and Ireland as free-market miracles, but Iceland is currently in receivership, having gone bankrupt, and Ireland isn't far behind.

Meanwhile, it's not at all difficult to cite prosperous countries where the population lives far more comfortably than most Americans. And these countries not only reject your preferred system, but the U.S. approach well, as far too raw and unregulated.

Given the choice, why should anyone take your route?

[Tom Lowe]

Look at the boom in the US from 1870 until the 1920s.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

So what if YOU can't start a company that competes with Sony, but don't assume others like Jim couldn't, and don't assume he needed "govt. help" to do it. I think Jim would find that offensive actually.

Even Jim was as 'small' at some point. He didn't inherit his Red startup money.

It's a chicken egg scenario. You have to protect the eggs or all you have are chickens and trust fund chickens. Which is the opposite of a meritocracy and doesn't let people like Jim enter a market and offer a superior product or use their superior business senses to replace existing market share.

You don't want your economy setup such that only billionaires can start companies.

[jpp]

Look at the boom in the US from 1870 until the 1920s.

Yes, the period of child factory labor, violent government suppression of labor protests and the development of urban slums. Tremendous wealth was amassed during this period, but not by working people; this was the age of the robber barons. And how did it end? With a market collapse, widespread bank failures, massive government intervention in the economy, and two world wars.

The highest increase in growth of per capita wealth occurred after WWII, thanks to strong unions, the GI bill, high taxes on wealth, strong banking regulations, a labor/business compact, and government programs like S.S.. That boom lasted until about 1970, until Nixon chucked out the Bretton-Woods agreement, and we embarked on the so-called free market era of slow growth and low wages. Since then, wages have actually declined.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Cardmaverick,

Can you name a single prosperous [correction!] country, at any time in history, that's implemented your free-market theories and thrived on them for more than a few years? Until recently, folks used to cite Iceland and Ireland as free-market miracles, but Iceland is currently in receivership, and Ireland isn't far behind.

Meanwhile, it's not at all difficult to cite prosperous countries where the population lives far more comfortably than most Americans, which not only reject your preferred system, but the U.S. system as well, as far too raw and unregulated.

Given the choice, why should anyone take your route?

Here's the problem, a truly free society hasn't even been given a chance. From day one in the US its been a downward spiral of big govt. power grabbing, just look at slavery, blatant ignoring of a freshly signed constitution forbidding that. More big government. Can you please defend slavery? It only existed because of government you know.

As for citing other countries I find that rather odd. Why? Because you, and millions of others probably don't know this: our currency is what backs literally over a hundred other nations currencies. Our currency is worthless (100% crap since 1971, look it up), and thus, so is theirs... You can write whole books on why that setup is a bad idea economically, and I've read them!

Define living "comfortably"? I'm curios. I know in many socialistic countries you are probably referring to, that privacy is almost non existent, you have to wait on lists for operations because some bureaucrat thinks he can predict exactly the number/types of procedures are needed each year, and all the brightest tend to flee to the US, despite our declining freedoms. Theres more, like the fact that all those countries are headed for bankruptcy as well (so are we, but they are much farther along then we are as dead end socialists go).

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Can you please defend slavery? It only existed because of government you know.

Everything only exists because of government. Your wealth and my wealth are only defined by our ability to defend said definition. If I come into your house. Shoot you and start living in your home. Without a government it's now my house.

In a "Truely free market" the easiest way to eliminate the competition is to violently enforce your monopoly. No government or regulation and execution of executives and entrepreneurs who threaten your business is fair game.

In a "Truely free market" ("which has never existed") slaves and employees are indescernable. The employer simply grabs someone on the street and straps them into a chair. In a "truely free market" an employer who controls most of the jobs in a market can tell the grocery store to only sell to people who work for the company. They can effectively completely control a labor market and force people to work for little to no wages. They can also force you to sign agreements which forbid you from working for anyone else. They get you while you're hungry. And have you sign whatever they want in exchange for a hot meal. Then you're a slave. That's free market.

"Oh but I'll just go to the town next door!" Sure... but someone has already setup a monopoly on labor there as well. Maybe you can't afford to move.

With a truely free market you devolve into fiefdoms and the dark ages.

[Peter Weisberg]

Define living "comfortably"? I'm curios. I know in many socialistic countries you are probably referring to, that privacy is almost non existent, you have to wait on lists for operations because some bureaucrat thinks he can predict exactly the number/types of procedures are needed each year, and all the brightest tend to flee to the US, despite our declining freedoms. Theres more, like the fact that all those countries are headed for bankruptcy as well (so are we, but they are much farther along then we are as dead end socialists go).

actually the socialism practiced in europe specifically in sweden is handling much better than we are right now in the states. The fact of the matter is any economic plan founded on greed is not the way to go, it will cause more problems then it solves and it instills all the wrong ideas. Instead of focusing on making the best possible product we can, most companies focus on making the best possible profit. What we are seeing in our economy is a blatent example of captialism working its way around regulation. Thats the problem with captialism in the first place, is that in order for it to work there needs to be regulation and regulation like that always has loopholes. Now we have industries that CAN NOT fail and if they do it means catastrophe so the govt has to bail them out. But if the government was running these industries and they started to fail, the public could demand a change in staff. Shareholding would be a matter of public record and we wouldn't see these big ceo's being able to lie and steal money with no one there to stop them.

This would leave free market competition for industries that could fail without bringing down our entire economy, and would allow for a much healthier form of competition.

[Kevin Olsen]

Sorry, but no. The Federal Reserve is known as a quasi-governmental institution, with elements of private governance. It's not a government agency, but it's not a private business either. In practice, the Federal Reserve is very unlikely to thwart presidential directives. And the president appoints the Fed chief.

While the GOA has the ability to audit the Fed, they never release their findings to Congress, and thus Congress can't dictate policy.

Yes the President appoints the head of the Fed, but this is widely known that he does so from a list of 'options' the Fed gives him. This is the only member of the Fed that the government appoints, and his position is largely a PR role, meant to ease market concerns and promote positive perception.

I suggest EVERYONE, read and sign a petition urging their Congressmen/Congresswomen, to support H.R. 1207, which outlines plans to make the Fed report their activities to Congress and make their activites public knowledge. This was introduced by Ron Paul and has 162 co-sponsors in the house (as of 05/14/09).

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/campaigns/auditthefed.php

There are plenty of articles and good news clips showing some deliberation about many of these topics at the Campaign for Liberty site. I suggest you visit and read a bit. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

If your curious about the history of the Fed, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242436774&sr=8-1

KO

[Jay Voutour]

While the GOA has the ability to audit the Fed, they never release their findings to Congress, and thus Congress can't dictate policy.

Yes the President appoints the head of the Fed, but this is widely known that he does so from a list of 'options' the Fed gives him. This is the only member of the Fed that the government appoints, and his position is largely a PR role, meant to ease market concerns and promote positive perception.

I suggest EVERYONE, read and sign a petition urging their Congressmen/Congresswomen, to support H.R. 1207, which outlines plans to make the Fed report their activities to Congress and make their activites public knowledge. This was introduced by Ron Paul and has 162 co-sponsors in the house (as of 05/14/09).

http://www.campaignforliberty.com/campaigns/auditthefed.php

There are plenty of articles and good news clips showing some deliberation about many of these topics at the Campaign for Liberty site. I suggest you visit and read a bit. http://www.campaignforliberty.com/

If your curious about the history of the Fed, read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Jekyll-Island-Federal-Reserve/dp/0912986395/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242436774&sr=8-1

KO

IMO, 'government' (quasi- or otherwise) transparency and accountability is always a good thing. Especially when you are dealing with $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
________
Toyota Tf104 History (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Toyota_TF104)

[GlennChan]

Talk about circular arguments.... I thought the whole beauty of being a monopoly is that you don't have to answer to customers and can sell them crap.
But they can't... otherwise people would switch to Linux, OS X, etc.

Microsoft still has to improve its operating system, support developers, etc. etc.


A good thing, too, since not a day passes without a Microsoft Windows security alert. Any kind of warranty, extended or otherwise, would bankrupt Microsoft in about 10 days.
So from what I understand, whatever Microsoft does is evil?

Not offering free security patches? Evil.
Offering free security patches? Also evil.

[Matthew Rogers]

actually the socialism practiced in europe specifically in sweden is handling much better than we are right now in the states. The fact of the matter is any economic plan founded on greed is not the way to go, it will cause more problems then it solves and it instills all the wrong ideas. Instead of focusing on making the best possible product we can, most companies focus on making the best possible profit. What we are seeing in our economy is a blatent example of capitalism working its way around regulation. Thats the problem with capitalism in the first place, is that in order for it to work there needs to be regulation and regulation like that always has loopholes. Now we have industries that CAN NOT fail and if they do it means catastrophe so the govt has to bail them out. But if the government was running these industries and they started to fail, the public could demand a change in staff. Shareholding would be a matter of public record and we wouldn't see these big ceo's being able to lie and steal money with no one there to stop them.

This would leave free market competition for industries that could fail without bringing down our entire economy, and would allow for a much healthier form of competition.

When was the last time you saw a well run government program? I mean seriously? I am currently dealing with SS and Mediacare for my grandparents and it is such a joke. If I ran my business like the government runs things, I would have made it about one month (of course, I don't have access to just taking more money from other people or printing more!) I find it funny how congressmen and senators accuse CEO's of all these things, and they are doing just as many wrong things.

Capitalism works. But only in a moral society. I don't think our society is anything like it was 200 years ago. Big companies can fail. Let them. It's happened before and we've gotten through it. But capitalism only works if things like failing companies to actually fail. We will survive.

But basic laws like not letting people who can't afford to take out loans to not take them out is wise. There's nothing in the Constitution about providing an easy life for you. All you get is protection from other countries, each other, and freedom to make your life whatever you want to make it. (you know, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness") That's what I love about the US. You can make your life whatever you want it to be. Federal government isn't supposed to provide anything more.

Matthew

[Tom Lowe]

Man, it's nice to see a lot of libertarian-minded people in here. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

[GlennChan]

When was the last time you saw a well run government program? I mean seriously?
Uh... garbage collection. Defense. Police. :D

Though I agree that there a lot of cases where the government shouldn't get involved / it does a terrible job. Subsidies, protectionism, bailing out bad banks and rewarding people who have made too many bad loans, starting wars, etc. etc.

[jpp]

Define living "comfortably"? I'm curios.

- free health care, which results in far lower infant mortality rates and substantially higher life expectancy than in the U.S. Europeans also grow taller than Americans these days, which is a very revealing public health stat.

- free higher education, including graduate and professional school (film school too, for that matter; when I was on the festival circuit with shorts, it was always easy to tell the European student films: 35mm.)

- mandatory 6 week vacations

- a guaranteed wage, in case of sickness or disability

- free daycare

- no poverty, as we know it in the U.S. (and especially, no CHILD poverty)


I know in many socialistic countries you are probably referring to, that privacy is almost non existent

You mean countries where the government spies illegally on your phone calls, emails and financial and medical records, and then has the Congress immunize the elected officials who ordered the illegal surveillance? That couldn't be us by any chance, could it?


When was the last time you saw a well run government program? I mean seriously?

Social security works flawlessly, and took millions of seniors out of poverty, and Medicare works pretty well, apart from the private sector fraud which besets the program, and the bleeding it gets from pols who want to give themselves and their campaign contributors tax cuts.

More to the point, would you really want the health insurance industry or investment bankers running the post office or the military?

Ah, but I forgot. The investment banks and the health insurance industry DO run the country .... And look at the result.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

JPG, please don't mis-quote me:

I agree with this, but never typed it, Matthew Rogers did:

"When was the last time you saw a well run government program? I mean seriously?"

Gotta keep an eye on that sorta thing...

[Joseph Ward]

Sorry, but no. The Federal Reserve is known as a quasi-governmental institution, with elements of private governance. It's not a government agency, but it's not a private business either. In practice, the Federal Reserve is very unlikely to thwart presidential directives. And the president appoints the Fed chief.

Sorry I was wrong, but just saying why the need for the government to pay interest on issuing money, if it was Federal? As far as presidential appoints for the Fed Chief, the President gets a list that he(or she) chooses from and nominates while Congress approves/confirms the nominee. The biggest power house for the Federal Reserve, compared to the other banks/territories, is the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Congress can exercise their right to audit the Federal Reserve but they won't... Ahh Economics can go around in circles.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Man, it's nice to see a lot of libertarian-minded people in here. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/icons/icon14.gif

Yep, Raise your hand if you have unplugged your brain from our "political matrix" (Left and Right) and seen the truth. :thumbsup:

[Matt Gottshalk]

Small "l" libertarian here.

It is time for Atlas to Shrug.

[Joseph Ward]

Yep, Raise your hand if you have unplugged your brain from our "political matrix" (Left and Right) and seen the truth. :thumbsup:

YES! :thumbup::thumbup1:

[jpp]

It took Alan Greenspan about 80 years to finally figure out that Ayn Rand wrote fiction (and badly), but enlightenment did come to him. You guys may also come around some day....

[Chris Nuzzaco]

This is getting FAR away from anti-trust, but I'll close my night with this simple truth:

He who controls the money, especially fiat money, controls all, until it inevitably self destructs.

When the free, private public at large no longer has full control of the monetary system, you loose freedom. The Fed, albeit "private" in some ways, is a terrible idea. Its money backed by nothing, and no one else gets to control it except for the Fed and undeniably, Politicians with influence and power. Think about that, then think about my statement regarding power. Most Americans have no clue that the US has run several fiat money systems into the ground before... prepare for the next time it happens, which isn't too far from now according to history.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Money is intrinsically worthless. It is what the market decides it is worth. It's representative of the relative purchasing power of the US population.

Gold standard is beyond stupid it's dangerous. What happens if the US creates a race of robots which quadruples our productivity and makes us out compete every nation on earth? Should our currency and buying power be related to our productivity and relative output or how much Gold is in a vault somewhere? Answer me that.

The US government isn't terribly inefficient, it just has terrible customer service because it has a monopoly on service. You have no where else to go (or you can not take advantage of its services and avoid the hastle.) If we want better customer service then we need to inform our congressman and women that we want resource prioritized onto that. Would you like the SS system to have more staff to help you with paperwork? Or would you like a larger SS check? It's a 0 sum game.

I've worked with a lot of big corporations. If you think the government is large and wasteful you must have never worked with a fortune 500 company. It's a question of margins. Saving $1,000 here and there just doesn't register on their radar. It's like .00000001% of their annual expenditures so it goes unnoticed. It all slowly adds up but it's a symptom of a large organization not anything special or particular to governance. Do we need more accountability and oversight? You bet. Can you reach a point where the energy to save a buck costs a buck fifty? Yes. Very easily. There is a point of diminishing returns.

Saying that the government does nothing well is an insult to the contributions of all of the effective and patriot men and women who choose service over personal wealth. Police, Social Workers,Teachers, Air Traffic Controllers (ok they actually get payed pretty well.), FBI, accountants, parks service, armed services and armed services.

Are there lazy slackers? You bet. I've gone to McDonalds (the epoch of capitalism) and seen lazier, less efficient people. That's not government. That's a symptom of being so far from leadership that you recognize your insignificance. It's why I work at a small studio. So that I won't be lost in some closet somewhere unable to be heard or contribute. But the converse challenge of a small organization is that our potential is limited to a smaller scope. We also are more selective. At some point you have to reduce your efficiency and personel standards in order to meet volume. That's the paradox of any large organization. Big ambitious projects require waste. You can't micromanage Rome.

When you're shooting a small personal project you know what everyone is doing. You can keep focused you can shape and mold every little detail. But when you grow the scope. When you need a crew of 1,000 you'll have people who aren't always working. You have to communicate. You have to organize. You have to mange. Suddenly you have people who do no work themselves except to orchestrate other individuals. Suddenly there is nobody who has the entire organization in their head. They have to consult. They have to have meetings. Efficiency plummets.

Perhaps your company doesn't waste money like the government. But your company also doesn't serve 300 million people. You don't manage millions of employees and trillions of dollars. Your company can't touch the reach and potential good that the government can. We should never let perfection become the enemy of good.

[Danish P.V.]

Here's the problem, a truly free society hasn't even been given a chance.

To the rest of the world, the U.S. seemingly is one of the most "aggressive" "free markets capitalist" society we currently have and what you would like to see is one even more "free"???

[Yannick Hagman]

Surely the market needs some regulations. However, too much of those regulations are unhealty as well. Take a look at Germany or maybe Italy, where you can't even resign an employee as an employer. It's not good if employers have to fear that everytime they hire someone. The opposite which you see in the US with almost zero workers rights and no health insurance is also crap. I'm glad that my country seems to have found one of the best agreement so far between social rights and free-market in Europe with being a lot more liberal than countries around us.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Surely the market needs some regulations. However, too much of those regulations are unhealty as well.


The golden middle, I agree. But it's hardest to achieve in practice.

[Yannick Hagman]

The golden middle, I agree. But it's hardest to achieve in practice.

Especially in a two party plutocracy that is. I consider the USA one.

[jpp]

Here's the problem, a truly free society hasn't even been given a chance.

So the system you advocate has never been shown to work, the closest approximations range (at best) from economic disasters like Ireland and Iceland (both formerly embraced by the free market crowd as models for America) to the destitution of the Third World, where the state lets its citizens starve at leisure, without burdensome regulation or restraints on foreign investment or local capital, and where everything is for sale.

In other words, you're hawking a system which, you claim, would be truly wonderful if all your conditions were fulfilled, but those conditions have never been fulfilled and never will be fulfilled, as long as we have governments.

There's a word for claims which can never be tested and with no basis in empirical reality: "religion".


As for citing other countries I find that rather odd. Why? Because you, and millions of others probably don't know this: our currency is what backs literally over a hundred other nations currencies. Our currency is worthless (100% crap since 1971, look it up), and thus, so is theirs... You can write whole books on why that setup is a bad idea economically, and I've read them!

No, I don't enjoy your unique wisdom and insight. However, I do live in the real world. The West has been relatively stable for generations now. It may all collapse one day -- tomorrow, or 30 years from now. But that's hardly a basis to embrace free-market dogma which, by your own admission, has never been shown to work and exists only (as you conceive it) as fantasy, to date. Truth is, you sound like a Marxist who wants to try the USSR again, it really wasn't the failure of communism, etc., etc. etc., if only they had.....

Besides most people don't want this paradise of yours. There are higher values than a life of punishments and rewards based on competitive advantage. The Anglo-American model has never been very popular, except among financial elites who don't actually have to live by it. When *they* fail, they clamor for socialism. And they get it.

[Radoslav Karapetkov]

Especially in a two party plutocracy that is. I consider the USA one.


Yeah, a two party system = not good.

It's almost as if the party was only one, we had something like that until about 10 years ago. Fake as hell. (Not that the current situation is much better, anyway).

But on the other hand, the instability of parliamentary democracy is another issue.

My ideal would be, a Presidential democracy like in the US, but with a healthy, multi-party Parliament to counterbalance it.

The division of powers... principles, principles...

[Peter Weisberg]

government is one of those things that is impossible to get perfect. its been tried for years and years and years. even harder than getting it right is changing it once its been set. I just hope that americans are ready to embrace change within the system to make it better. A lot of americans still have this cold war mentality to socialism when the truth is its a good balance between captialism and communism allowing for individualism and also the government looking after each of its citizens.

but maybe i should just move to europe...

[Yannick Hagman]

But on the other hand, the instability of parliamentary democracy is another issue.

It's very stable with 5-8 parties.

[Tom Lowe]

So the system you advocate has never been shown to work

Ever heard of the United States of America? We are the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth because we have this system of limited government and personal liberty, protected by a sublime Constitution, despite the best efforts of our recent politicians to ignore that Constitution. Why do you think this country has done so well? To the extent that we stick to our Constitution and honor both economic and personal liberty, we will thrive. If we ignore the Constitution and drift toward communism, the country will collapse, like the UK is about to, and like the USSR did.

Socialism and communism can never work because they go against human nature. If you pay someone not to work and give him a 6 week vacation on top of it, many will choose not to work. That's human nature.

The reason healthcare is so expensive in the US, for example, has nothing at all to do with the free market. Just the opposite! In a truly free market, people would have catastrophic insurance for car wrecks, cancer, etc. But they would only pay $40 or whatever for a Dr.'s visit. Right now, the free market has been so warped by government intervention that it costs $500 for a bandaid at the hospital.

Right now we have a system in the US where the left wing Democrats protect personal liberty and trample economic liberty. The right-wing Republicans (at least in theory) protect economic liberty, but trample personal liberty. The answer is obvious. It's the answer our Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson recommended for us and enshrined in our Constitution - a constitutionally limited federal republic that champions both personal AND economic liberty.

Right now, both parties are ignoring the Constitution. And it will lead to the failure of this experiment in democracy. For example, we have a federal "war on drugs" that allows federal agents to raid people's homes for growing marijuana to trade in local cooperatives, or to smoke themselves -- both of which are perfectly legal under California law. The weed is grown locally, and consumed locally, but the federal government falsely uses the "interstate commerce clause" to grant themselves the power to prevent this activity and throw people in jail! It's completely unconstitutional.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a brilliant response to this trampling of the consitution:


"Respondents Diane Monson and Angel Raich use marijuana that has never been bought or sold, that has never crossed state lines, and that has had no demonstrable effect on the national market for marijuana. If Congress can regulate this under the Commerce Clause, then it can regulate virtually anything--and the Federal government is no longer one of limited and enumerated powers. ... By holding that Congress may regulate activity that is neither interstate nor commerce under the Interstate Commerce Clause, the Court abandons any attempt to enforce the Constitution's limits on federal power." -- Justice Clarence Thomas

The Tenth Amendment of our Constitution prevents this type of federal power grab:


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

But the federal government ignores it!

What America needs is a political movement that respects both personal AND economic liberty. After all, they are two sides of the same coin.

[jpp]

Ever heard of the United States of America? We are the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth because we have this system of limited government and personal liberty, protected by a sublime Constitution, despite the best efforts of our recent politicians to ignore that Constitution. Why do you think this country has done so well?

And how do you think we got to be prosperous and powerful? The same way every country does it: by protecting emerging industries and socializing the losses of big business. Subsidies even for established and profitable industries, many of which pay no Federal taxes, are in the hundreds of billions a year, thanks to American taxpayers. This has been going on for decades. And this year, of course, those subsidies are in the trillions.

The main difference between us and other western industrial democracies is that they offer their citizens more of the pie, so that the benefits of socialism aren't restricted to the financial oligarchy alone.

We, by contrast, are perfectly happy to let wages fall and cut services to the middle-class and poor, in order to greatly increase the wealth of the top 1%, and vastly increase the wealth of the top .1%.

Why do you think people are drowning in debt in this country? On their salaries, they simply can't afford the products which keep the country "prosperous" (through sales). First, wives were sent out to work. Then one or both spouses took second jobs. When none of that could keep up, people went into debt.

Did we really expect this sham to go on for ever? Without credit, there's no prosperity, because people don't earn enough to buy things. With credit, the economy is unsound. With sustained low wages, which is the choice we've made in this country, there's no way out of this bind.

The notion that economic fairness is somehow communistic baffles me. As I noted previously, life is far more pleasant for most people in a number of other countries. You may prefer the American way. That's your right. But why pretend ours is the best possible world? It may be, if you're comfortable. What about those who aren't comfortable?

[Chris Nuzzaco]

So the system you advocate has never been shown to work

I'm saying it hasn't been given a chance, doesn't mean it didn't take hold in the US. Our basic ground work for govt. here is VERY Libertarian, but after day one, we started to loose sight. I guess I should have explained that better... Seriously, read the constitution and I bet you'll hate all of its Libertarian ideals and values if you enjoy big govt. Loose interpretation of the constitution is one reason we've gotten into this mess.

As for Iceland and Ireland as examples, it shows a lack of understanding. They have central banks. Thats not free market, thats not capitalism, thats govt. control. So whats your point? Can you point me to a successful, centrally controlled fiat currency that has withstood the test of time? Good luck.

FYI, Libertarianism is about small govt., very small govt. It's not anarchy, like you assume.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Why do you think people are drowning in debt in this country? On their salaries, they simply can't afford the products which keep the country "prosperous" (through sales).


I'll tell you why. It's: The Federal Reserve and Inflation.

What don't you understand about that? Every day that goes by, your purchasing power dissolves faster than your fixed pay increases. It's a recipe for disaster, no wonder people are forced to barrow money they can't ever pay back. Open your eyes man.

[jpp]

I'm saying it hasn't been given a chance, doesn't mean it didn't take hold in the US.

And I'll point out a second time: the conditions you demand, for a fair test of your theory, don't exist in this world, and never will exist in this world. Marxists have been making the same claims for years: if only the Soviet Union had done this or that, we would have had a worker's paradise, etc.

Since your theory can never be tested, what good is it?

[M Most]

Socialism and communism can never work because they go against human nature. If you pay someone not to work and give him a 6 week vacation on top of it, many will choose not to work. That's human nature.

"Human nature" is not purely biological. Only the instinct for survival is biological. Everything else is a combination of biology and sociology - people are products of their environment. The fact that you believe what you just stated doesn't show you're human, it shows that you're American. If you were European, or Scandinavian, you would not state what you have stated because you would likely not believe it to be true. Everything you have said represents a truly America-centric way of seeing the world. Which might have some - I said some - validity in the US, but it's far from universal and should not be proposed as such.


The reason healthcare is so expensive in the US, for example, has nothing at all to do with the free market. Just the opposite! In a truly free market, people would have catastrophic insurance for car wrecks, cancer, etc. But they would only pay $40 or whatever for a Dr.'s visit. Right now, the free market has been so warped by government intervention that it costs $500 for a bandaid at the hospital.

Once again, you're talking about a society that doesn't exist. All of your theories are only valid if one believes that people in general, and Americans in particular, are willing and able to give up the greed that is at the very heart of American society. That is not the case. It won't be the case in my lifetime, and it won't be the case in yours.


Right now we have a system in the US where the left wing Democrats protect personal liberty and trample economic liberty. The right-wing Republicans (at least in theory) protect economic liberty, but trample personal liberty. The answer is obvious. It's the answer our Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson recommended for us and enshrined in our Constitution - a constitutionally limited federal republic that champions both personal AND economic liberty.

Uhhhhhhh.... right. Good luck with that.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Since your theory can never be tested, what good is it?

It can be, and we do it by actually following our constitution, not cherry picking the hell out of it, and blatantly twisting its terms. Simple as that.

[Tom Lowe]

Maybe wives would not have to work if the government was not taking 50% of our income?

jpp, it's not going to be possible to convince you that economic freedom is as important as personal freedom. You have your ideas, and they are not going to be changed here.

The point of the US was to found a new nation where people could live in economic, personal and religious freedom. If you want to try a socialism experiment, there are plenty of nations in Europe right now giving it a try. And I can promise you this -- they will not end well. Once lazy loafers figure out they don't need to contribute to society, they will stop contributing. Ask Russians about that.

Our system of limited government and individual and economic liberty might not be perfect, and it might not have a "fair" outcome for all, but it's the system our Founders gave us.

What's wrong with letting Europe experiment with socialism while we experiment with liberty? Do we all need to be doing the exact same thing?

[jpp]

I'll tell you why. It's: The Federal Reserve and Inflation.

What don't you understand about that?

Oh, lordy. This is the world we live in. This is the world humankind has always lived in, from the time that "portable property" (i.e., currency) first took hold. And that world includes inflation.

But so what? The standard of living either improves for most people, or it doesn't, whatever the real or nominal value of the currency at any given time.

You're welcome to dream of an imaginary world, where your conditions are satisfied and where we live in eternal peace and prosperity, but what does that have to do with real life?

[Yannick Hagman]

Ever heard of the United States of America? We are the most prosperous and powerful nation on earth.

Not quite true:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

[M Most]

What don't you understand about that? ... Open your eyes man.

What I don't understand is your position here as being somehow intellectually and morally superior to everyone else. Your positions as stated here are your personal observations and beliefs, not universal truth. Nobody has a monopoly on truth. Everyone else's personal positions are just as valid as yours, whether you agree with them or not. Pointing to governmental institutions as the root cause of societal ills is only one view. The society itself has its own problems, deeply rooted in 200 years of development, that have created views that are uniquely American and far from universal. Simple things like seeing just about everything in life as a competition, and the value of winning vs. losing, and the goal of being wealthy, are not necessarily universally held views throughout the world. It's fine to express your views and theories (although why you're doing this on a forum devoted to a camera company is beyond me). It's not fine to feel that everyone that disagrees with them is an uneducated idiot.

[jpp]

It's fine to express your views and theories (although why you're doing this on a forum devoted to a camera company is beyond me). It's not fine to feel that everyone that disagrees with them is an uneducated idiot.

Maybe I'm just as contemptuous in my own way, but this view that any dissenter is an idiot reflects, I'd argue, the fundamentally religious and magical nature of the beliefs, since none of the claims being made is demonstrable in the real world, and the pre-conditions for testing those claims has never existed, and isn't likely to.

How's that for contemptuous?:)

[Gavin Greenwalt]

If we ignore the Constitution and drift toward communism, the country will collapse, like the UK is about to, and like the USSR did.

That's demonstrably false.

The UK is failing right now for one reason: their enormous financial sector investments.

You know what I've been hearing for the last 10 years. "We can't compete with the UK. The UK is the new free market capital of the world. We need to become more like the UK where their financial services market is less regulated. Everyone is putting their banks in London now. Democrats are obstructing the market and keeping us from getting a piece of that pie."

Now. Suddenly that utopia of unregulated banking in London which we were missing out on has completely impoded taking an enormous chunk of the UK economy with it. And now all of a sudden it's the fault of communists and regulatory agencies? BULLSHIT. You don't get to take credit for it when it's working and then suddenly offload it the moment it turns toxic. I've been saying for the last decade that London can keep its crazy free for all financial services market in London and that I want us to have nothing to do with it.

And as long as 1 in 10 children go to school hungry I don't give a shit if we're the most prosperous nation in the world. Or if we each statistically have a ferrari. Nobody should be hungry. Everybody should have a roof over their head and access to medical care is a basic human right.

And universal health care isn't a communist activity it's a free market activity.

Right now workers are imprisoned by their health care. I could start my own business and be an entrepreneur or I could stick with my current employer because I can't risk falling ill. By ensuring everybody has access to the basic necessities they can become more adventurous more ambitious and ultimately more innovative.

A personal story:
My parents payed for all of my housing and food during college. I payed 1/3rd of my tuition. They also helped out after I graduated for 6 months. And I knew that if it all turned sour I would be able to move back home and receive assistance until I found a job.

This is socialism. And it helped me enormously. During college I worried about learning and pushing myself instead of showing up to work after class on time. I was able to volunteer on any and all projects that I thought would be educational instead of having to limit it to time when I wasn't working.

After college I was able to spend the time getting the job that I thought would be the best fit for myself instead of needing to pay rent out the door day one. I didn't have to take a job out of desperation... any job just to keep food on the table and a roof over my head.

Socialism is good for capitalism. It gives people the safety net to best utilize their potential. To find the place in society where they can offer the maximum return. It's something I was blessed to have personally and wish everyone had.

There is no such thing as truely free market (except for anarchy) as long as human beings are involved. We aren't perfectly rational beings. Even though the housing bubble was obviously overinflating... people still dumped tons of money into it. Not because theythought they would get a bailout. But because people are stupid. We go to vegas. We think we're on a roll. We are falsey certain of our knowledge. We get sucked into emotional irrational and stupid decisions ALL the time. Or at least I know I do.

There's also ignorance. A truely free market can only operate when everyone participating completely understands the system. I would wager I'm a pretty smart guy... but I have absolutely no clue what my 401k prospectus means. I think I speak for the vast majority of people when I say "They could be telling me I will lose all my money next week and I would have no clue." So when I hear people say "Oh those people should have read their contracts more carefully." Yeah they should have. But that doesn't mean they would have learned anything more. What they really shouldn't have done was trust the person handing it to them and gotten a second opinion. But people tend to be trustingh. Trustworthiness, ignorance, irrational exuberance. All of these things prevent us from having a truely free market because you don't need it to be true... you just need people to believe it.

[Joe G.]

"The point of the US was to found a new nation where people could live in economic, personal and religious freedom."

Unless they were natives, blacks, Latinos, Chinese, women... or lived anywhere in the world that the robber barons coveted their resources.

[Joseph Ward]

My personal take on government role, is any extreme is bad. The far right or far left. Let me put it this way, do we try everyone in a case the same, no, we try everyone different due to a case to case and circumstance/intent scenario, but we "try to give equal justice". What I am trying to say is that looking at everything as black and white, left or right, generalizing, nationalistic, one worldism, or only one piece of the whole, to me is flawed.

Ideology that overcomes common sense is pointless. What the whole world is missing is WISDOM, more than knowledge. The truth is know one here or anywhere else, including myself, knows exactly how to make a perfect world. Sorry Venus Project. lol Perfection is impossible but we should always strive to do better.

What was this thread about anyway? Just kidding.:beer:

[Andrew Kimery]

The problem w/socialism or capitalism or communism or pretty much any other 'ism' is that in order for the 'ism' to be true everyone has to agree to and abide by the rules of that particular 'ism'. On a small scale that's doable (a handful of people living and working in a self sustaining commune for example). On a large scale that's impossible. Some people will game the system to their benefit even if it's to the detriment of everyone else and the 'ism' comes crashing down. Are there lazy people that game the welfare system even though they are perfectly able to work? Sure. Are there people that game the capitalist system in the name of profit even if it means ruining, and sometimes endangering, the lives of others? Sure. No 'ism' is right or wrong or perfect. Horses for courses, IMO. I think the world would be a better place if people were more pragmatic and less ideological.


-Andrew

[Gavin Greenwalt]

The real problem is that we haven't brought the scientific method to public policy. It's all a bunch of hearsay and voodoo.

We need a renaisance in governance based on reason and historical data. We need to implement multiple policies simultaneously but under carefully controlled sample groups so that we can draw accurate conclusions. Instead of anecdotal improvisation based on faith in abstract and intangible terms.

And I think that's something that people on both sides of the debate would embrace. Because we're both certain that our side would win. Personally I thought the last 8 years were just such a test... but I guess we could do it on a smaller scale again just to reinforce how very wrong they were. :D

[Tom Lowe]

Anyone who wants a brief summary of what is taking place in the UK need only spend 3 minutes watching this devastating video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=94lW6Y4tBXs

Anyone who thinks high taxes and big government is the solution to our problems should come here to California and witness what is happening to our beloved state. The government is literally destroying our state before our every eyes with their out-of-control spending and taxing. We have the highest sales, income and gas taxes in America, and now, thanks to the government, California is bankrupt. Many of our most productive citizens are fleeing for nearby states like Arizona, Nevada and Oregon. Hollywood productions are fleeing for Canada and Australia.

[jpp]

In the lower brackets, NY State and NYC income taxes are about 3 times what you pay in California. At the top NYS/NYC bracket, which is reached at about $20,000 (not $1 million or more, as in California), the combined rate is about 11%. Sales tax is currently about 8.5% and is going up to about 9%.

It's not pleasant, but it's not the end of civilization either. However, it *is* a great pity that with a marginal rate (with SS payroll taxes) nearing 50% in NYC for somebody making $50K -- a European level of taxation -- that there's no free health insurance, no free college, no free day-care, etc.

Then again, we spend more on the military that the rest of the world combined, in order to invade countries which don't threaten us, and blow $3 trillion on the adventure..

[Tom Lowe]

Then again, we spend more on the military that the rest of the world combined, in order to invade countries which don't threaten us, and blow $3 trillion on the adventure..

Which is yet another violation our Constitution (Congress must declare war) and which goes against the advice of our Founding Fathers, who cautioned us to practice a non-interventionist foreign policy. When we violate the Constitution and ignore the advice of the Founders, the results are always negative. Al Qaeda is the result of our foreign interventionism, and our warmongering is quickly bankrupting our nation.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Meanwhile Washington State. A hotbed of hippie liberal tree hugger communists is doing just fine thank you very much.

Me thinks your anecdotal California problems are more fundamental than a high taxation rate.

Especially considering low tax, extremely conservative states are also getting their asses kicked.

This is PRECISELY the sort of anecdotal unempirical voodoo that makes most public policy discussions less than useful. Instead of finding the actual causation you just blame whatever is happening on oposing party and move on. It's like saying Pirates were a direct result of the Bush Stem Cell position. "Suddenly we are being confronted by pirates. If you take note you'll see that Stem Cell research was also supressed during the same time frame. Therefore I conclude that we need stem cell research or else we'll all die in pirate attacks."

An equally anecdotal and useless comment would be to counter that even your governor thinks the problem is the required super majority to pass any sort of budget resulting in gridlock.

Arizona may be able to offer huge tax breaks. But that's because you get what you pay for if you live there. Nevada is one huge tax cheat. Companies like Microsoft are "headquartered" in Nevada so that they can sell Windows without taxation. Meanwhile they use Washington to base their actual employees because that's where employees want to live and Microsoft (as a collection of workers) wants almost nothing to do with Nevada.

I think taxation should be based on the % of your employees that live in a state. Not where a headquarters or PO Box is located.

If your company wants to be headquartered in Bermuda then I expect most of your employees to depend on Bermuda's tax revenue for public service. Good luck!

[Danish P.V.]

Which is yet another violation our Constitution (Congress must declare war) and which goes against the advice of our Founding Fathers, who cautioned us to practice a non-interventionist foreign policy. When we violate the Constitution and ignore the advice of the Founders, the results are always negative. Al Qaeda is the result of our foreign interventionism, and our warmongering is quickly bankrupting our nation.

But without foreign interventionism your country can`t keep it`s capitalism either, you NEED wars in order to conquer and secure old and new markets, exploit and secure natural ressources and keep geostrategic power. That`s how it works...as sad as it is...

[Liam Hall]

Anyone who wants a brief summary of what is taking place in the UK need only spend 3 minutes watching this devastating video:

Lol. You should try living here!

[Barry Gregg]

Gavin,
How is Washington State doing fine? Our state budget is 8 billion dollar's in the red, the state retirement system is 5 to 6 billion in the red because the state hasn't been putting the necessary funds into the system, because the state budget is so behind. Boeing is getting ready to vacate the state. Oh yeah, we're doing great here in the "hippie liberal tree hugger communist" Washington state. Fantastic.

[jpp]

Which is yet another violation our Constitution (Congress must declare war) and which goes against the advice of our Founding Fathers, who cautioned us to practice a non-interventionist foreign policy. When we violate the Constitution and ignore the advice of the Founders

I'll never understand these reversions to fundamentalist beliefs or texts, whether it's the bible or the U.S. constitution. We're not going to bring back the days of Jefferson. We're not bringing back the gold standard. We're not reducing government to national defense and garbage collection -- certainly not by design, anyway. And even if we could agree on what the Constitution actually says, we're not bringing back a state based on a literal reading of it.

I doubt I would much like your ideal world, even if it came about. But what does this kind of absolutist discourse accomplish, beyond establishing positions which antagonize those who don't accept them as gospel, and preclude any constructive action or incremental improvements? Policy differences are one thing: at least those can be discussed. But these blanket interpretations, everything through the filter of a selective reading of the Constitution or an idealized view of the operation of free markets -- I don't see how it serves.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Our budget is balanced through June 30th 2011. We have one of the lowest foreclosure rates in the nation.

Boeing isn't going to build the *The World's Largest Building* somewhere else. They've got a lot of money invested here.

We have hundreds of millions of dollars in our rainy day fund.

For a service and manufacturing based economy we're doing suprisingly well as far as employment is concerned.

Most of our problems stem from tieing tax revenue to Real Estate values and retail expenditures. Something I've always opposed.

Last year our GDP grew faster than any state except for New York and Nevada. And before the worst of the recession our economy was still growing. Once this recession ends we re-evaluate our methods of taxation and should shift it to a sensible income tax which is more reflective of the actual economy and buying power of the citizens.

What's happening is we're suffering due to real estate and retail but fundamentally were and still are in a good position going forward. If you look at our GDP per capita we're still like #9 for wealthiest states. We have the money. We have the jobs. People want want to live here. We just need to rejig our taxation policy to reflect that.

[M Most]

Hollywood productions are fleeing for Canada and Australia.

Uhhhh... that's been going on for at least 15 years. It has little to do with the current situation.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

What's really suprising is that an industry stayed almost exclusively in ONE PLACE for 100years.

It's only natural that things are starting to spread out a bit.

[M Most]

Al Qaeda is the result of our foreign interventionism, and our warmongering is quickly bankrupting our nation.

If we're going to talk history, at least let's leave the revisionism out of it. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that was formed and basically survives on the beliefs that Israel must be destroyed, any settlement with other parties that leaves Israel in existence is unacceptable, and anyone who is not a Muslim must die. While I would agree that the US policies of the last 8 years have certainly contributed to its ability to attract new true believers, its existence and purpose long predates any of the US's misadventures in the Middle East that Al Qaeda and others of its ilk claim as their own.

[Tom Lowe]

If we're going to talk history, at least let's leave the revisionism out of it. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that was formed and basically survives on the beliefs that Israel must be destroyed, any settlement with other parties that leaves Israel in existence is unacceptable, and anyone who is not a Muslim must die. While I would agree that the US policies of the last 8 years have certainly contributed to its ability to attract new true believers, its existence and purpose long predates any of the US's misadventures in the Middle East that Al Qaeda and others of its ilk claim as their own.

Israel is an after-thought for bin Laden. Only recently has he included much talk of Israel in his speeches. It's mainly done to help recruitment. Bin Laden's main concern and objection to the US is foreign troops on Muslim lands, particularly the Arabian peninsula. He also despises our support for corrupt and despotic Arab governments, such as the Saudi monarchy. If you're genuinely interested in this subject, I can point you to some excellent books if you pm me. Start with "Imperial Hubris."

[jpp]

If we're going to talk history, at least let's leave the revisionism out of it. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization that was formed and basically survives on the beliefs that Israel must be destroyed, any settlement with other parties that leaves Israel in existence is unacceptable, and anyone who is not a Muslim must die.

I'm not sure this is quite accurate. Osama bin Laden was interviewed several times in the late 90s, and he was explicit about his grievances, and his policy aims. His first priority was to draw the U.S. into a protracted war of occupation in a Muslim country. We've seen how that went.

His stated grievances were also straightforward, and didn't include converting the heathen to Islam, or killing billions of non-Muslims. He objected to U.S. foreign policy in in the Middle-East generally, propping up what he considered heretical regimes, and in Saudi Arabia in particular, where U.S. troops were stationed. A former CIA analyst, Michael Scherer (sp?), who covered the area, has said much the same thing: Al Qaeda has genuine geo-political grievances and is motivated by those grievances, whatever we may think of them.

[M Most]

His stated grievances were also straightforward, and didn't include converting the heathen to Islam, or killing billions of non-Muslims. He objected to U.S. foreign policy in in the Middle-East generally, propping up what he considered heretical regimes, and in Saudi Arabia in particular, where U.S. troops were stationed. A former CIA analyst, Michael Scherer (sp?), who covered the area, has said much the same thing: Al Qaeda has genuine geo-political grievances and is motivated by those grievances, whatever we may think of them.

I stand somewhat corrected.

However, I also think this topic is becoming a very pointless waste of bandwidth for RedUser, so I'm bowing out of it.

[Evin Grant]

Well in this small community you guys are doing a great job of keeping it civil:thumbsup:
Please continue in this tone and the local government (us mods) won't have to restrict anyones free speech. If anyone's curious Reduser is a benign dictatorship:hippie:

[Joseph Ward]

In RED we trust.:patriot:

[Peter Weisberg]

ya i gotta say its really nice that even though we may have differing views everyone remained civil even in the heat of the debate. I applaud that.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Well we're only at 11 pages.

The last one (pre-election) took about 30 to get closed. :D

I would love for there to be a forum on the internet. Where very single point had to be cited with a research study backing up the statement. It would move at a snail's pace but be thoroughly educational.

What we need is an epidemiological statician to take up economics.

[Louis Timm]

I don't mean to sound like a punk or anything

Please don't apologize for speaking the truth.

It is so heartening to see Austrian Econ being discussed here. Thank you! Restores my faith a wee bit.

I assume you're a Ron Paul supporter as well? If you don't want to answer that one, I understand. They're calling us "terrorists" now.

And with "Mr. Change" Obama continuing Bush's policies, we'd better all watch what we say, I guess.

[Yannick Hagman]

Well, I joined the green-liberal party. I'm really borred by not very constructive right-left discussions.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I assume you're a Ron Paul supporter as well? If you don't want to answer that one, I understand. They're calling us "terrorists" now.

Bullshit. Who is calling you terrorists now?

All I see on the news still is that Democrats are the traitorous insidious communists trying to destroy the country and cede sovereignty to the terrorists. I don't hear Fox news every day accusing libertarians of treason.

[Jay Voutour]

...Democrats are the traitorous insidious communists trying to destroy the country and cede sovereignty to the terrorists...

Off-topic:

Gavin, I can't help but imagine that the little brown owl in your avatar is saying these things to the doe-eyed white owl. lol :rofl:
________
Teen Fat (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/1027/fat/videos/1)

[Tom Lowe]

Bullshit. Who is calling you terrorists now?


Is this kind of tone necessary, Gavin?

Let's try to be polite to one another, at least.

To answer your question:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/14/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/

[Joe G.]

"We have the highest sales, income and gas taxes in America, and now, thanks to the government, California is bankrupt. "

I suppose you forgot all about ENRON CORPORATION and PG&E stealing $72 Billion from California way back when?

$72Bn here, $72Bn there. Pretty soon you're talking about real money.

Now, I agree that "the government" is (and was) a partner in the crime. By failing to arrest the energy company fraudsters and by failing to seize their assets for manipulating the energy markets, they allowed this to happen.

Schwarzenneger talked a bunch of shit to get elected, then he had all the proceedings against the energy giants dropped as soon as he seized power, in typical corrupt Republican style. He was on the payroll the whole time.

Point is: it's not some amorphous "government" that was behind it, but specific people who should be held accountable. Government regulation was too lax, due to the immense corruption that goes unchallenged. This was a corruption of the state legislature so that they would undo 70 years of sensible regulation in favor of a "free market" for the energy sector. Some had a free for all, that's for sure.

The bogus "anti-government" libertarian rhetoric has gaping holes in it, where the rubber meets the road. I asked a libertarian candidate once about why we shouldn't have clean water regulations and have government watchdogs stop companies from polluting -- POISONING -- our drinking water.

He choked. He had no reasonable response. The room dismissed him.

[GlennChan]

Well we're only at 11 pages.
You can setup your account to show 40 posts / page.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Is this kind of tone necessary, Gavin?

To answer your question:

http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/2009/mar/14/fusion-center-data-draws-fire-over-assertions/

Sorry.

Poppycock! better?

And if I were to create a profile to help police officers identify gang members I would list tattoos, long baggy clothing, bandannas, dew rags, etc etc etc... which would identify most inner city kids regardless if they're gang members.

Let's make a little ven diagram of crazy.

(Ron Paul Supporters, etc, etc (Want to Overthrow Government))

It's the same in the environmental movement

(Drives Electric Car, Has dread locks, reads mother jones, lots of bumper stickers, is against free trade(burns down ski resorts))

If you've got a Bushmaster, AK47 and room full of shotguns. If you are a member of a militia. If you are a follower of conspiracy theories and think the only thing protecting you from a dictatorship is your ammunition. If you think the IRS is unconstitutional. You're 100x more likely to be a domestic terrorist. There's no reason to go looking for ultra right wing terrorists in a carbon neutral organic food store. Nor to look for enviroterrorists on the mexican border holding an AK-47. If you're a cop and you pull over a car with a "Meat is Murder" bumper sticker, the driver probably isn't packing heat.

As long as it's for the purpose that it's stated for and not actually attached to a domestic spying program then by all means create a description for various groups. There's this great book I forget its name but it's like the Urban Hipster guide. It lets you spot goths, goth-punks, preppies etc etc... there are like 100 categories in it. It's not perfect but it's pretty funny and accurate.

And it's still a far cry from actually suggesting that their points of view are treasonous. In said article the author even says something to the effect of "I'm not saying whether militias are good or bad, just identifying them as a common identifier."

Meanwhile you have people like Glen Beck accusing democrats of being "in bed with islamo fascists". That's straight up an accusation of treason against 35% of Americans who identify themselves as democrats.

[Tom Lowe]

It's the same in the environmental movement


Right. Exactly. So this Missouri report saying that people with Bob Barr bumper sitckers should be profiled as potential militia terrorists would be similar to profiling soccer moms in Volvos that have World Wildlife Fund stickers as potential Eco-Terrorists. It's just nonsense. Not only that, but who knows what type of domestic spying has even been taking place. Should Bob Barr supporters and WWF Volvo moms be subjected to wiretapping or police profiling?

http://i43.tinypic.com/339n313.gif

One of the shocking things in the Missouri report is that cops were told to be on the lookout for people "who believe in the Constitution"! Can you imagine that?!! What a bunch of subversives!

[Chris Nuzzaco]

The bogus "anti-government" libertarian rhetoric has gaping holes in it, where the rubber meets the road. I asked a libertarian candidate once about why we shouldn't have clean water regulations and have government watchdogs stop companies from polluting -- POISONING -- our drinking water.

He choked. He had no reasonable response. The room dismissed him.

Ever hear of Underwriters Laboratories (AKA the "UL" marking on virtually every home appliance made)? The UL is privately owned and operated, and has been keeping your behind safe since 1894. So with that said, why one do you assume this can't be done with drinking water? Seriously?

Lets look at this logically: I own an operation that sells access to water.

One day someone kicks the bucket from drinking it, and people panic, no longer buying my service giving access to water. Where do they go? Some would hit up the bottled water companies, others might just go with juices, etc... In the end, people stop using the service, and I loose my business, which means I could be shut down. Whats the answer? Keeping the water clean, to keep my customers happy.

See? How simple is that? All you have to do is think logically.

As for govt. regulation... Would you trust your health to DC's lead contaminated water? Water contamination is a big issue in DC. It's publicly controlled too. Have you heard any stories about private bottled water being contaminated? I haven't...

I'll take my private clean water over your dirty public water any day.

Here are some resources:

http://www.legalradar.com/2009/02/dc-utility-faces-200-million-lead-contamination-suit.html

http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/

http://mises.org/story/3440

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Here's an interesting way to look at private VS public.

When a govt. agency screws up, it gets to stick around and keep on screwing up. It's very hard to eliminate an agency once its created.

When a private company screws up in a true free market, with no govt. interference, it can go out of business, and many have.

Now I'm sure big govt. advocates will point at all these "example" companies to fight this argument, but its premature, because the govt. has given them all kinds of protections they would not have in a free market. See? Your big govt. working against you. It doesn't matter who is in charge, left or right, they both want different versions of big govt. Once you realize this, things become more clear.

GM is a perfect example of govt. meddling. They said they would keep it out of bankruptcy, and guess what? BILLIONS of dollars later, and they are preparing for bankruptcy. If we let the free market do it it's thing, we could have saved those billions.

[jpp]

Lets look at this logically: I own an operation that sells access to water.

One day someone kicks the bucket from drinking it, and people panic, no longer buying my service giving access to water. Where do they go? Some would hit up the bottled water companies, others might just go with juices, etc... In the end, people stop using the service, and I loose my business, which means I could be shut down. Whats the answer? Keeping the water clean, to keep my customers happy.

See? How simple is that? All you have to do is think logically.

Your example is fairly flabbergasting: industrial companies, including some of the biggest, among them oil companies, *have* been polluting the drinking water in this country for years, with no consequences to themselves or their shareholders. Have a look at EPA surveys of the current quality of the American drinking water supply. Who's putting the companies responsible out of business? The consumer?

As for the specifics of your own example, what satisfaction is the local community suppose to derive when it stops buying your products , if you've already contaminated the local water supply -- and even assuming your deed is discovered immediately, rather than thousands of cancers and birth defects later, when you've already left town?

Still worse, the incentives of your system actually *favor* pollution: if you're confident that thanks to a lack of regulation your crime won't be discovered immediately, what economic incentive do you have for avoiding contamination? And, even if you don't pollute knowingly or intentionally, lack of regulation ensures that you will be able to do so out of ignorance or incompetence.

And this is how you want to run a huge economy? Sounds suicidal, more than logical.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Your example is fairly flabbergasting: industrial companies, including some of the biggest, among them oil companies, *have* been polluting the drinking water in this country for years, with no consequences to themselves or their shareholders. Have a look at EPA surveys of the current quality of the American drinking water supply. Who's putting the companies responsible out of business? The consumer?

This argument has no grounds. Here's why: oil companies SELL OIL, not drinking water, so clearly this makes no sense.

Furthermore, you're precious govt. agency, the EPA, clearly isn't getting the job done if all that pollution is going on, and I already pointed out govt. inability to insure quality by using DC, our nations capitol mind you, as a blazing example. People die in DC due to a govt. run water supply that is poisonous. Did you see the $200 million law suit being filed? I provided a link to the article...


As for the specifics of your own example, what satisfaction is the local community suppose to derive when it stops buying your products , if you've already contaminated the local water supply -- and even assuming your deed is discovered immediately, rather than thousands of cancers and birth defects later, when you've already left town?

Again, this statement also makes no sense. How do you think problems are found? Do you think every problem can be predicted? The answer is they can't, but one thing is certain, the free market figures it out faster. Do you remember the first swine flu scare decades ago? The govt. rushed out a vaccine that killed far more people than the swine flue itself. No one in the private sector endorsed the govt. position of pushing out a drug as fast as they did, low and behold, the private sector was correct. Recently there was an issue discovered with Hydroxy Cut. Do you know who found this issue? It was NOT the FDA, it was the private public. After all of that, it makes you wonder if govt. agencies are even worth the tax dollars required to fund them.


Still worse, the incentives of your system actually *favor* pollution: if you're confident that thanks to a lack of regulation your crime won't be discovered immediately, what economic incentive do you have for avoiding contamination? And, even if you don't pollute knowingly or intentionally, lack of regulation ensures that you will be able to do so out of ignorance or incompetence.

And this is how you want to run a huge economy? Sounds suicidal, more than logical.

Again, this is more non-sense. If I kill off my customers, who in the world will I sell my product to? I'd be eliminating my market. Your logic isn't even logical. Furthermore, you totally ignore all the various PRIVATE consumer advocacy groups we have. You ignore the fact that choices and options exist in a free market. Don't like the dirty water being sold (assuming it even is), go drink milk or juice instead.

Whats your stance on the UL? You seem awfully quiet about the UL, a private institution that is keeping you safe right now, as you read this on your computer. When you typed your "rebuttal", they kept your hands safe by testing your keyboard. I just checked my wireless keyboard, yep, it has a UL mark on it....

Do you see how long it takes to dis-spell one of the many myths in these big govt. rebuttals? This is why I can't address every single one. This one however, it was too glaring a myth, so I took the time out of my day to do it.

[Joel Kaye]

This argument has no grounds. Here's why: oil companies SELL OIL, not drinking water, so clearly this makes no sense.

Uh... a company doesn't have to sell water to pollute it.

You need to see the movie "The Corporation" if you never have.
Corporations are driven by profit and often will do harm if the penalty for the harm costs less money than preventing the harm. Very typical.

As far "big gov't being evil I somewhat agree... to the the extent big gov't is controlled by big corporations it is pretty evil. Big corporations absolutely rip off the taxpayers via gov't.

[jpp]

Cardmaverick,

Based on your arguments above, we shouldn't have any pollution at all, because pollution won't be to any business's economic advantage (except, of course when it is). So it seems to me your beliefs require that reality be other than what it demonstrably is. Or you argue, circularly, that if reality doesn't behave the way you predict, it's because all your pre-conditions haven't been met.

You could always blame government incentives for private sector pollution (of which we have numberless tons), but this assumes that businesses are so fundamentally depraved that they'll pollute freely if they think government will bear the costs of the cleanup or indemnify them legally. However, if businesses are depraved or amoral by nature, that's the best case yet for regulation.

You might want to look further afield. There's no environmental regulation in China, which is great for their emerging industries. Just don't breath deeply, eat the food or drink the water. You know the phrase "blue sky"? Well, there are no blue skies in China, all you see is this sickening miasma which blots out all color. It won't help that the consumers of Chinese goods are thousands of miles away, and are unlikely punish these industries for destroying the land, water and air in China, even if your model actually worked.

In the end, all this discussion proves is that we're not using the same system of deduction to arrive at conclusions. There's no point in any more of it, at least not between the two of us. Bad as the government is, I can only celebrate that people with your views are no longer in charge. As for UL saving the world -- good luck with it, it's grand to know that American appliances don't routinely electrocute people, and all without government interference. If only UL had been in charge of the credit-rating agencies these past few years, instead of, well, highly profitable non-government private sector credit rating agencies....

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I would say the years prior to regulation are an excellent example of what happens without environmental regulation.

Also the water company thing is kind of confusing because a large number of municipalities have a government sanctioned private sector monopoly providng water. So water is handled by the private sector... just under extremely close regulation.

I'm confused as to how though you think the private sector would find it provitable to run two sets of pipes into each house. As far as bottled water is concerned that already is a largely free market enterprise. And if it doesn't need regulation then obviously the government isn't impeding those companies... they're happily doing it themselves.

As far as safety is concerned though it's INCREDIBLY difficult to pin pollution to the cause of illness. The drinking water company could be killing half of the people in town... but proving that would be difficult. Or if it were proven it could take decades at which point the damage has already been done on the company it laughing all the way to the bank.

And what if I'm not in the drinking water business? If I'm a nuclear power plant there's nothing financially incentivizing me not just dumping all of my waste into the river to float down stream. "Not my problem. Not my cost."

I would google "Tragedy of the Commons". It's a very basic principle. 8th Grade Sociology stuff. Tragedy of the Commons is the reason we have regulation.

[Tom Lowe]

With all due respect to my friend Chris, it's unwise to argue on a public forum for scrapping environmental laws. This is a major problem the LP (Libertarian Party) runs into, and why it never gains much traction. LP message boards are full of guys sitting around talking about closing down fire stations and making all the public roads into toll roads. The public aint gonna go for this at all, nor should they, IMHO.

Do you know how many toll roads I would have to pay for when I travel from Orange County to the High Sierras? No thanks.

In order to grow as a movement, liberty-minded people need to present a more mainstream agenda. All of politics is a compromise, and if you're not willing to compromise at all, you will never get anywhere. It's much better to concentrate on the big-ticket items that many can agree on -- balancing the budget, cutting spending, increasing personal liberties, ending our overseas empire and putting a stop to counterproductive foreign interventionism.

A lot of my libertarian friends recently decried the federal government's move to set aside large swaths of the Eastern Sierras as a nature preserve with the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Mountains Wild Heritage Act. This includes parts of the White Mountains. I for one applauded it! I want that land to remain as untouched by man as possible.

As Sun Tzu advised, all battles are won or lost before they are fought. Advocates of limited government need to wisely choose their battles.

[jpp]

It's much better to concentrate on the big-ticket items that many can agree on -- balancing the budget, cutting spending, increasing personal liberties, ending our overseas empire and putting a stop to counterproductive foreign interventionism.

But that's just it! We don't agree on these issues. The permanent political/industrial elite in this country -- and I don't mean Harvard liberals -- loves foreign intervention. And it's highly profitable (for some).

And why would the poor and lower-middle class demand cuts in government spending if they have kids in public school and depend on government funded health programs?

And balanced budgets are fine only if want government to stop investing in infrastructure and economic development, or you prefer that government lack the power of stimulus, or you don't believe in fiscal stimulus and want to return to the Hoover era. Where's the popular support for these ideas?

Even as a Trojan Horse, to put libertarians in control, these dogmas are not necessarily winning issues. Your program is much less universal than you may think.

[Tom Lowe]

But that's just it! We don't agree on these issues. The permanent political/industrial elite in this country -- and I don't mean Harvard liberals -- loves foreign intervention. And it's highly profitable (for some).

That's my point. If you offer young people, for example, a true agenda of ending counterproductive foreign interventionism, they will flock to that message. Or offer them increased personal freedom. Look at Joe Biden for example. Here is a guy who favors foreign interventionism, and is a leading proponent of the "war on drugs." That's not what many young people are looking for.


Your program is much less universal than you may think.

We'll see about that. http://www.reduser.net/forum/images/icons/icon12.gif

[jpp]

A lot of my libertarian friends recently decried the federal government's move to set aside large swaths of the Eastern Sierras as a nature preserve with the Eastern Sierra and Northern San Gabriel Mountains Wild Heritage Act. This includes parts of the White Mountains. I for one applauded it! I want that land to remain as untouched by man as possible.

That's maybe because you have values which, in this instance, transcend strictly monetary or mercantile concerns.

Well, a lot of people have values which transcend strictly monetary and mercantile concerns, in lots of other areas. When we defend those values, the result is called "civilization".

Libertarians would be a lot more convincing, if they were as avid about supporting the ACLU, prosecuting U.S. war crimes and ending torture, as they are defenders of the rights of capital and so-called free enterprise.

[Tom Lowe]

Libertarians would be a lot more convincing, if they were as avid about supporting the ACLU, prosecuting U.S. war crimes and ending torture, as they are defenders of the rights of capital and so-called free enterprise.

Are you kidding me? Libertarians have teamed up with the ACLU on the torture question, the "Patriot Act," closing Guantanamo, truly ending the warmongering, etc. We are the only ones calling for real change! jpp, I think you should learn more about the liberty movement before making these massively incorrect statements.

Watch this video and tell me if you still hold the same opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSZ8FF8iMAM

[Andrew Kimery]

Again, this is more non-sense. If I kill off my customers, who in the world will I sell my product to? I'd be eliminating my market.

Know any smokers?

The glaring problem w/this position is the assumption that everyone, especially those in a position of power, will follow the golden rule. If no one committed any crimes we wouldn't need cops or the judicial system but people do commit crimes. Things like OSHA, child labor laws, and the 40hr work week weren't created in a vacuum. Our history is littered w/examples of companies exploiting and/or endangering the lives of others in the name of profit (the Pullman company town near Chicago, Love Canal, Triangle Shirtwaist Company, etc.). How many companies today travel to third world countries for manufacturing and/or waste disposal because of fewer labor and environmental regulations?

Running a more profitable business, not necessarily creating the best product or service, 'wins' in the free market game. Why make a better mouse trap when you can just undercut, or buyout, the competition (did the deregulation of the 90's create less or more media companies)? Are government regulations perfect? No. Is it easier to wash one's hands of the entire thing by saying "let the market sort it out"? Yes. But just because it's easier doesn't mean it's right. I don't want government controlling everything but I do want them to have some presence (kinda like refs at a football game).


-Andrew

[jpp]

Are you kidding me? Libertarians have teamed up with the ACLU on the torture question, the "Patriot Act," closing Guantanamo, truly ending the warmongering, etc. We are the only ones calling for real change! jpp,

If that's really true, I just wish the libertarians would carry more of the water, because the whole thing is being painted as a conspiracy of commie-loving eastern liberals, like the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, who want to coddle terrorists rather than Keep Us Safe, or of people who hate Bush and are just looking for revenge.

If libertarians were more visible in this fight, it wouldn't be so easy for the other side to demonize government critics as pampered elites who are trying to criminalize policy differences.

[Joe G.]

See? I told you. Dogma trumps common sense with those guys every single time.

"Furthermore, you're (sic) precious govt. agency, the EPA, clearly isn't getting the job done if all that pollution is going on..."

And what was the water situation before the EPA started enforcement?

I agree that it could do a much better job AT REGULATING CORPORATIONS MORE, not less.

I'm all for JAIL TIME and stiff penalties when a corporate decision-maker knowingly endangers or harms anyone. Period.

[Michael McLaughlin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0&feature=channel_page

I have cholera!!!


:couch:

[Chris Nuzzaco]

If you read my posts, you'll understand I'm not against protecting our people, my opinion is why do we always need the govt. to do it? The UL is a fantastic example, and I have yet to find anyone willing to take that one on. I don't own a Red, but I bet it has a UL stamp on it. Just because a private sector version of the UL for environmental protection hasn't been started yet, does not mean it couldn't be started.

I was coming back from a shoot out west once and I was talking to a young women who works for a DC "Think Tank", which is private of course, and guess what she said... this is not a direct quote, but essentially it went like this:

"The govt. pays us to fix its problems."

Think about that.

Again, Libertarians want small govt., essentially what we had from day one, and actually still have, we just need to practice it again. Thats what is so genius about the framework, its horribly hard to change it, no matter how much the current govt. breaks the rules (almost always via the court system), we can still point this out, because they never changed to begin with... beautiful even in dark times.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

How much power do you keep giving failing agencies?

I want to hear an answer to that question. It seems awfully similar to the "inflationist" approach to fixing our economy... just keep on printing and printing and printing... before you know it, your in a huge pile of problems.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Nobody is complaining about the UL because it has nothing to do with large or small government.

The government mandates standards. The UL certifies people live up to those standards. I have no problem with companies getting independent verification of compliance instead of a government employee. It's a question of regulation.

[Peter Weisberg]

someone has to set the rules and enforce them and i sure as hell wouldn't want to leave that to the free market

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Especially if "losing me as a customer" means me losing my life.

How much is human life 'worth' is the problem. Conservatives demonize trial lawyers so a life should only be worth what it costs to 'fix it'. So if a product lops off my arm and 100,000 other people's arms. But it's still profitable then the company will continue to push the safety envelope up to the point of maximum profit. And since it's difficult to make a truly informed decision there's nothing to inform the customer as to which is less likely to lop off an arm or give you cancer.

If you go to an auto showroom and see the new 2010 cars... how do you know which are going to be the most reliable? "Oh the market will straighten itself out." Yeah sure... after I've bought it. I would much rather not have to be one of a million other people who die in a fireball before the company determines the amount of customers its losing is costing more than than the fix.

The point of regulations is to apply value to things which have no intrinsic value. And take a look at cellphones. "Just go to the company which has great customer service." Uhhhh... ok. yeah... I'll choose *that* company. If you need a cell phone but let's say all cell phones killed you then there would be market option for a safe cell phone.

We didn't get seat belts in cars because of any sort of market pressure. It took the government forcing car companies to install them.

There was no economic incentive to add catalytic converters to cars. "My neighbor can get worse gas mileage and less performance to save the environment." The "correct" decision for each customers is to maximize their own gain. The "correct" decision for each seller is to maximize their own gain. In such a system the commons become worthless and everyone loses even though it's the best market decision for each individual company/buyer.

I'll say it again. Tragedy of the Commons.

[Joel Kaye]

The Libertarian program would still be undigestible for lefties like me, but if libertarians were more visible in this fight, it wouldn't be so easy for the other side to demonize government critics as pampered elites who are trying to criminalize policy differences.

Well, the media didn't exactly make Ron Paul as visible as he could have been. I don't love some of the stuff Libertarian's are about... like privatizing the Grand Canyon but they are definitely against American Imperialism.

We had a local libertarian radio host (Charles Goyette) lose his job over his criticisms of the Iraq nonsense while he was on a conservative station. The local liberal station picked him up for a while.

I love Andrew's example of the tobacco industry. Clearly they were killing off customers, knew about it and kept on doing it. The movie "Thank You for Smoking" comes to mind.

Again - gov't isn't all good or all bad. Neither are corporations. But heavy influence of corporations over gov't is usually to benefit the corporation and not the average citizen. That's why this is a complicated discussion... black and white thinkers don't do "complicated" very well but they sure love to argue.

[Julian Banos]

This is a really interesting topic, and I think history could have been worse for the film industry in the US. During WWII there was a lot of talk about nationalizing Hollywood, but producers were able to defend their studios.
Looking at data from the 1920s and 1930s in Britain the movie business declined, at first not in quantity. This was an era where Europe adopted quota systems for distribution and all sorts of government intervention in the film industry. I think this really hurt the film industry in Europe.
This also happened in Mexico. Right before and during WWII Mexico was producing a lot of films and several studios emerged. The industry was booming and it was non stop. Right after the war the government began taking control of parts of the industry until the industry practically disappeared.

I think people should be very aware of the extension of their governments. I think that they should be kept to a very basic level. Maybe the only job for a government is to protect our property.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Yeah I agree. The government should only protect property.

Nevermind people. Property is the important thing to keep safe. Do whatever it takes to keep people's stuff safe.

---

You know what we should do. We should have witches and warlocks handle everything. Stick with me on this... We've never really had a truly witch and warlock managed economy. I don't think it's ever really been given a fair chance. If you just trust the witches and warlocks I guarantee that they'll take care of everything. After all... they are witches.

Also we should get off this crazy fiat money system and on to something tangible and limited in quantity like... unicorn horns.

[Danish P.V.]

I think people should be very aware of the extension of their governments. I think that they should be kept to a very basic level. Maybe the only job for a government is to protect our property.

That makes sense - as long as my used underwear or my screwdriver is safe everything is totally fine! I don`t much care about pollution etc. Leave those things to, let`s say, General Electric, one of the biggest corporations on earth, founded by a guy that sent henchmen out to competing theater owners, electrocuted animals ranging from dogs up to a fully grown elephant and subsequently invented the electric chair to prove that AC (alternating current) is more dangerous than his system (direct current). Yes. Safety belongs (unrestrictedly) into the hands of business people...

[Louis Timm]

Bullshit. Who is calling you terrorists now?

The US Department of Homeland Security, among others. :couch:


I don't hear Fox news every day accusing libertarians of treason.

I wouldn't know. I don't follow Australian media. :sifone:

[jpp]

The US Department of Homeland Security, among others.

The Department of Homeland Security raised the odd notion that members of armed militias, including veterans, who advocate the violent overthrow of the U.S. government might pose a threat of terrorism. How strange.

At least we can say the government is broadening its criteria somewhat: for years, labor activists, environmentalists, socialists, progressive church groups, civil rights activists and civil liberties proponents -- anyone to the left of the Republican party -- was deemed a potential terrorist both by the Feds and local police departments, and the groups were (and are) routinely infiltrated by informants and provocateurs.

You may remember the case (was it Washington state?) when the local police shackled peaceful environmental protesters in the station house and painted their eyeballs with pepper spray. So confident were the police that there would be no consequences, that they left the cameras running. The whole thing was captured on tape, screams and all. The litigation went on for years, and no officers went to jail for it.

So it's hard to be sympathetic with the right-wing, particularly in view of its silence when the left was the sole target. Besides, given the choice of spying on well-armed radical right-wing militias or tree-huggers who brandish organic eggplants and who couldn't unblock a toilet, which would you prefer?

[Hans von Sonntag]

You may remember the case (was it Washington state?) when the local police shackled peaceful environmental protesters in the station house and painted their eyeballs with pepper spray. So confident were the police that there would be no consequences, that they left the cameras running. The whole thing was captured on tape, screams and all. The litigation went on for years, and no officers went to jail for it.


I'm living on the otherside of the pond but if I recall correctly this case happened in Miami, FL.

Hans

[jpp]

In fact it was California.

http://forests.org/archive/america/courpepp.htm

This is the opening of an article on it:

Title: California's Pepper Spray Trial Begins
Source: The San Francisco Examiner
Status: Copyrighted, contact source to reprint
Date: 8/14/98
Byline: Seth Rosenfield

Humboldt County sheriff's deputies were "courteous" and "compassionate"
when they daubed pepper spray on the eyes of several already immobile
environmental protesters, their lawyer told a jury.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Also coincidentally our most notorious domestic terrorists have been by and large ultra right wing conspiracy/militia men.

It is a logical fallacy to say all right wing conspiracy militia men are terrorists ala

"Doug likes bread. Dogs like bread. Doug is a Dog." but that's not what the government is claiming.

Again I'm more concerned about the government's warrantless and unfounded invasions of privacy than politically incorrect and obvious observations about what a terrorist looks like.

Just as I think security guards should be more careful with the guy sweating buckets and fidgeting. He might just be nervous about the big meeting in NY... but that doesn't mean he doesn't warrant a little extra attention.

If I were creating a profile for cops to watch out for people more likely to run a ponzi scheme I would show them a picture like this:
http://www.fev.com/data/images/executive_team.jpg even though I'm sure all those guys aren't criminals.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Know any smokers?

As for this smoking example, I have this to say:

Who made you smoke?

You are free to choose for yourself, and that is very much a libertarian view. Again, it seems like big govt. advocates assume there are zero options in life aside from what the govt. can provide. Furthermore, smoking was being called into question long before the FDA came around.

What I like about libertarianism is how it is outside the current system. It's like having a birds eye view of the whole problem were in. If anyone can see all the strings attached to half backed rebuttals, its the libertarians. They actually hold many values of both the traditional "left" and "right". Most of this thread has been focused on business, but they also have fascinating points of view on labor, morality, religion, etc.

There's a little something for everyone! :P

[Tom Lowe]

Of course I have used this example before, but one of the best arguments against overblown regulation is Bernie Madoff. The SEC "investigated" and "certified" Madoff year after year as being a legitimate businessman. This gave investors a false sense of security.

Without the government covering for Madoff, investors surely would have taken the five minutes that was required to discover that his whole operation was an obvious ponzi scheme. In fact, the whistle-blower who outed Madoff said it only took him five minutes of investigation with a calculator to be 100% certain that Madoff was a scammer. He actually brought his finding to the SEC numerous times, and they ignored him!

Without the federal government's seal of approval, Madoff would have never been able to pull off the largest private financial scam and theft in world history. Point being that when government becomes too large, their actions often backfire and have unintended consequences. It should be up to investors to due some basic due diligence.

One of the main arguments for limited government is that if government is small and narrowly defined in its powers, there will be less incentive for corruption, lobbying, and corporate cronyism. It won't matter if a Senator is in the back pocket of the banks, for example, because the government won't be able to overstep its bounds and rig the system in the banker's favor anyway. Increased government power always breeds more corruption, by definition.

[jpp]

But this runs us in a circle. Government regulation is incompetent because it's fundamentally corrupt, or designed to fail. Who corrupts it? Business interests. Who will run the show if there's no regulations at all? Business interests.

The answer isn't to eliminate regulation. It's to get business interests out of government regulation.


One of the main arguments for limited government is that if government is small and narrowly defined in its powers, there will be less incentive for corruption, lobbying, and corporate cronyism. It won't matter if a Senator is in the back pocket of the banks, for example, because the government won't be able to overstep its bounds and rig the system in the banker's favor anyway. Increased government power always breeds more corruption, by definition.

This non-regulatory system only ensures that the worst tendencies of large organizations are allowed free rein. There's no mystery about how corporations behave when they're unregulated. Just look at the behavior of American corporations in the third world.

In your example, there's no need to corrupt a Senator, because the bank can do what it wants without the trouble of corrupting public officials. How is that an improvement for the taxpayer who has to deal with the consequences? Or for the customer or shareholder, neither of whom is in position to interrogate management or assess the bank's books and business practices?

None of this works unless we first have the libertarian paradise -- without which none of the theories are provable, and in the absence of which none of the theories work. That's fine for religion, but not economics.

[Tom Lowe]

The answer isn't to eliminate regulation. It's to get business interests out of government regulation.

You'll never be able to do that as long as the government has the power to rig the game in favor of those who can bribe officials. History proves that. It's better to limit the scope of government to preventing fraud. Once investors discovered the Madoff scam, that is the point when government should step in, to toss Madoff in jail.

Look at AIG. Simple fraud protection is all that was needed. AIG was writing credit default swaps (insurance) with 1,000:1 leverage. There is no possible way they could pay off those bets. They were committing outright fraud the whole time. Government could have stepped in to prevent that type of obvious fraud. They should have shut down AIG years ago and tossed their execs into jail. Instead, they are bailing them out to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, needlessly.

Same thing with Fannie and Freddie. Government backing of those institutions provided cover for massive fraud and abusive. Not to mention that congress was pushing all lenders to make risky gambles on home loans for unworthy borrowers. Of course, it's all backed up by the implicit guarantee of the federal government. This helped to fuel and enable the greedy schemes of Wall Streets types.

FDIC is another example. Without the 100K guarantee of the feds, perhaps people would have investigated what their banks were doing with their money? Alarm bells might have sounded at the fact that these institutions were gambling recklessly in subprimes. But since the FDIC was backing the banks blindly, Americans figured, "Who cares what my bank does.. it's all backed and guaranteed by Uncle Sam."

The best solution is to let the government concentrate on prosecuting fraud and keeping the system unrigged.

[David Mullen ASC]

I can't really agree with your logic, that somehow less government regulation spawns more industry oversight and self-regulation. There is no evidence of that. The notion that the failure of regulators to catch fraud and abuse is therefore an argument for less regulation is ridiculous. It's like saying that if the police fail to catch murderers, the solution is to make murder legal and get rid of the police. It's a sort of unrealistic view of humanity.

When the financial stakes are high, some people naturally look for ways of cheating. The solution isn't to therefore remove regulations and safeguards.

The fact that the SEC wasn't doing its job in this circumstance is not evidence that we don't need the SEC, it's evidence that we need to SEC to do its job.

Sure, a private citizen can catch a fraud and report it, but they have no enforcement capability, no ability to punish or fine the person, and they may not have the industry credibility to challenge the company doing the fraud. If we didn't have the federal government acting as a final authority on what's allowed and not allowed, the situation where big companies can beat-up on little companies, where no one is going to listen to some little guy complaining about some powerful company committing fraud, would only be worse than it already is.

This idealized notion that without government regulation, ordinary citizens would regulate and catch financial criminals themselves and the industry would self-police itself... well, it goes against human nature and against historical evidence.

Financial systems going back to the Middle Ages have always relied on a partnership with governments to create prosperity -- you need court systems, you need regulations for the safety of products, you need safe transport, you need police, border control, etc. Lack of regulation tends to kill markets ultimately because greed and shortsightedness is basic to human nature. Businesses do not think about the greater good, they just think about beating their competition, and many these days don't even plan beyond their quarterly reports.

I get sick and tired of this knee-jerk "we don't need the government" mentality, as if the government were made up of Martians who descended down on us to rule us. It's our government and it's made up of fellow citizens -- it's US, just as much as the people working in the marketplace and who run these corporations are us as well. And for the system to work, we have to find a proper balance of government control and oversight over the marketplace.

As long as human beings are running things, there is potential for corruption in all areas of life -- I don't see how you can say that the government leads to corruption yet unregulated capitalism leads in the opposite direction. The only system that works is to assume that corruption will take place in all aspects of human institutions and find ways of monitoring and correcting that, to create safeguards, oversight, etc.

I don't see how the ordinary person somehow has more control over the corruption of corporations through the exercise of their pocketbooks compared to control over their government through the exercise of the ballot box. And when the ordinary person tries to take on a powerful private institution, the solution tends to be use a powerful public institution -- so people themselves tend to create both large governments and large corporations. It's not like businesses are made up of human beings but governments are made up of alien beings, so I don't get this attitude that somehow regards government as some sort of viral infection on human activity when we created that government and it's made up of our fellow citizens, some of whom we put into office by voting for them.

[jpp]

You'll never be able to do that as long as the government has the power to rig the game in favor of those who can bribe officials. History proves that.

Exactly, because we live in an imperfect and fallen world. But there are matters of degree. You're effectively saying that not only are American business interests so depraved and incorrigible that they're prepared to destroy the country for profit, but that there's no difference between the two political parties, and nothing is salvageable in American political culture, it's rotten to the core.

I'm nearly as pessimistic as you are about reform, but can't take it to that extreme. Things are better for ordinary people than they were, say, 100 years ago in this country. There's no reason things can't be far better for the country at the end of Obama's first term, than they were at the beginning. Unlikely, but still possible.

In any case, one has to hope. But there's no hope at all that business interests, left to themselves, will stop exercising the advantages of wealth and power, with disastrous consequences not only to society, but to their own interests as well.

[Julian Banos]

Yeah I agree. The government should only protect property.

Nevermind people. Property is the important thing to keep safe. Do whatever it takes to keep people's stuff safe.

---

You know what we should do. We should have witches and warlocks handle everything. Stick with me on this... We've never really had a truly witch and warlock managed economy. I don't think it's ever really been given a fair chance. If you just trust the witches and warlocks I guarantee that they'll take care of everything. After all... they are witches.

Also we should get off this crazy fiat money system and on to something tangible and limited in quantity like... unicorn horns.



Property includes your own life. The extension of what you call property leads to a really interesting discussion about liberties and law. José Ortega y Gasset writes in depth about it. No witches, no warlocks. I advise you Gavin, that you should keep your tone with some respect.

[jpp]

I don't get this attitude that somehow regards government as some sort of viral infection on human activity when we created that government and it's made up of our fellow citizens, some of whom we put into office by voting for them.

This is all the more unaccountable when you consider that government, however imperfect and corruptible, has to answer at least occasionally to the voters.

But to whom does business answer? Not even to shareholders, if you look at the way publically held companies are run in this country.

Unfortunately, we need the libertarian paradise to be in place before any of these mythical self-regulating mechanisms can be tested. And if the mechanisms fail, it's obviously because paradise wasn't fully achieved.

This is religion. It has to be taken on faith, and can never be proven wrong in the minds of believers, because there's always a reason why it doesn't work.

[Julian Banos]

I can't really agree with your logic, that somehow less government regulation spawns more industry oversight and self-regulation. There is no evidence of that. The notion that the failure of regulators to catch fraud and abuse is therefore an argument for less regulation is ridiculous. It's like saying that if the police fail to catch murderers, the solution is to make murder legal and get rid of the police. It's a sort of unrealistic view of humanity.

When the financial stakes are high, some people naturally look for ways of cheating. The solution isn't to therefore remove regulations and safeguards.

The fact that the SEC wasn't doing its job in this circumstance is not evidence that we don't need the SEC, it's evidence that we need to SEC to do its job.

Sure, a private citizen can catch a fraud and report it, but they have no enforcement capability, no ability to punish or fine the person, and they may not have the industry credibility to challenge the company doing the fraud. If we didn't have the federal government acting as a final authority on what's allowed and not allowed, the situation where big companies can beat-up on little companies, where no one is going to listen to some little guy complaining about some powerful company committing fraud, would only be worse than it already is.

This idealized notion that without government regulation, ordinary citizens would regulate and catch financial criminals themselves and the industry would self-police itself... well, it goes against human nature and against historical evidence.

Financial systems going back to the Middle Ages have always relied on a partnership with governments to create prosperity -- you need court systems, you need regulations for the safety of products, you need safe transport, you need police, border control, etc. Lack of regulation tends to kill markets ultimately because greed and shortsightedness is basic to human nature. Businesses do not think about the greater good, they just think about beating their competition, and many these days don't even plan beyond their quarterly reports.

I get sick and tired of this knee-jerk "we don't need the government" mentality, as if the government were made up of Martians who descended down on us to rule us. It's our government and it's made up of fellow citizens -- it's US, just as much as the people working in the marketplace and who run these corporations are us as well. And for the system to work, we have to find a proper balance of government control and oversight over the marketplace.

As long as human beings are running things, there is potential for corruption in all areas of life -- I don't see how you can say that the government leads to corruption yet unregulated capitalism leads in the opposite direction. The only system that works is to assume that corruption will take place in all aspects of human institutions and find ways of monitoring and correcting that, to create safeguards, oversight, etc.

I don't see how the ordinary person somehow has more control over the corruption of corporations through the exercise of their pocketbooks compared to control over their government through the exercise of the ballot box. And when the ordinary person tries to take on a powerful private institution, the solution tends to be use a powerful public institution -- so people themselves tend to create both large governments and large corporations. It's not like businesses are made up of human beings but governments are made up of alien beings, so I don't get this attitude that somehow regards government as some sort of viral infection on human activity when we created that government and it's made up of our fellow citizens, some of whom we put into office by voting for them.

This is where the discussion about government size is most important. If the main activities of government are defense and judicial, then citizens would concentrate their eyes into these activities only. This way it would advance and evolve into systems that really worked.
The main problem that I see is that governments try to reach out into areas that are really should not, therefore expanding their size and power over citizens. A side effect of this is that citizens are not able to keep an eye, nor have the attention over everything the government is doing. Also this tends to disrupt government financial operations, maybe leading a bankrupt economy.
This is why I advocate to minimun states with a strong judicial and defense system as a priority.
I usually try to keep my contracts outside of courts, through private arbitration and bonds. I would never claim this is a substitute for a court system, but it tends to keep things simple. Also markets punish irresponsible companies, but it should be accompanied with a judicial system that works, but that does not overreach. This balance is were the real discussion really stands for me.

[David Mullen ASC]

I think we just have to recognize that it isn't "us versus them" --it's all "us". We're all in the same boat and we should all want it to work. Yes, there are corrupt people out there, and criminals, and just as destructively, there are idiots out there in charge of things. In all walks of life, in all institutions, and all political parties. And there are some fundamental disagreements about the nature of things.

But we've had enough ideological posturing going on for awhile and it would be nice if enough people started looking for practical solutions to these problems.

In terms of the Madoff scandal, was the problem corruption, incompetence, lack of resources, or simple lack of interest on the part of regulators? All of the above? Was the SEC more or less 'strangled' by being underfunded and then led by people who fundamentally did not really believe in the importance of regulation? Or were they bought off? Or were they just bad at their jobs?

[Chris Nuzzaco]

Govt. becomes the ultimate tool when it becomes too large and powerful. I don't care who wields the tool, Labor or Business for example, it tends to breed problems and the "solution" is always one side granting the govt. more powers (or themselves) to hurt their opposition... I both work for others (in Film as a DP/Colorist), but I also run my own company and hire out others (and have to deal more with govt. because of this), so I think I have a unique point of view on this situation.

[David Mullen ASC]

This is where the discussion about government size is most important. If the main activities of government are defense and judicial, then citizens would concentrate their eyes into these activities only. This way it would advance and evolve into systems that really worked.
The main problem that I see is that governments try to reach out into areas that are really should not, therefore expanding their size and power over citizens. A side effect of this is that citizens are not able to keep an eye, nor have the attention over everything the government is doing. Also this tends to disrupt government financial operations, maybe leading a bankrupt economy.
This is why I advocate to minimun states with a strong judicial and defense system as a priority.
I usually try to keep my contracts outside of courts, through private arbitration and bonds. I would never claim this is a substitute for a court system, but it tends to keep things simple. Also markets punish irresponsible companies, but it should be accompanied with a judicial system that works, but that does not overreach. This balance is were the real discussion really stands for me.

Yet can governments remain "small" when populations keep growing and markets keep expanding? We have several billion people on this planet and a worldwide economy. If we could keep everyone operating on a more local scale, things would be more manageable, but I'm not sure that degree of localization and simplification is possible -- if businesses keep expanding in size, reach, and complexity, then how can the systems that regulate it shrink in size and become simpler?

But I do think there are some institutions that work better when kept smaller in size -- school districts, for example.

Trouble here in the U.S. is that the ordinary citizen is relatively uninterested in what goes on in local and statewide politics, just national politics. Today is an election day in California and I suspect turnout will be abyssmal. How can we get more direct democracy on a local scale when people are increasingly bored with their local politics and look for solutions only from the national government? Or turn off completely from politics and think the solution is to hide on some ranch in some depopulated region, as if the several billion inhabitants of this planet can do likewise?

[jpp]

I think we just have to recognize that it isn't "us versus them" --it's all "us".

Have to differ here (a bit). Individuals today face institutional power, and institutional depravity is unique. Organizations, including large corporations, and governments as well, will do things that non-sociopathic individuals never would. The "enemy" isn't really human.

Which is why we need a functioning democracy of informed citizens, so the state itself doesn't become a sociopathic organism, and a strong regulatory apparatus for business.

Ultimately, it's all "us". But structurally, there's a case to be made that the struggle is in fact "us versus them", or maybe "us versus it".

[Chris Nuzzaco]

What amazes me, is the number of people who flat out do not have any understanding or knowledge of our monetary system, and why its important that we return control of it to the private public.

Anyone working in film knows that whoever controls the money calls the shots. Want more power over the govt.? Take back control of your money, then things will change for the better.

[Peter Weisberg]

What amazes me, is the number of people who flat out do not have any understanding or knowledge of our monetary system, and why its important that we return control of it to the private public.

Anyone working in film knows that whoever controls the money calls the shots. Want more power over the govt.? Take back control of your money, then things will change for the better.

you keep bringing this up. Maybe the average american joe doesn't know how our monetary system works, but that hardly means no one does. You don't have to be a libertarian to know our country and economy set up are totally messed up.

The real problem is that we are working from a flawed system... but all systems are flawed so nothing can be done about that but try and make it better. The problem with the government is its like a leaking dam with small leaks all over. Every time we plug one leak another 2 emerge. Instead of trying to fix these overly complex and inane setups we established we should work on establishing a new setup and completely overhauling everything to be able to work in the 21st century. We have the technology these days to allow citizens to voice their opinions more than ever before, yet public opinion has no real power unless its election time, in which case all the politicians are lying anyways.

Ya the monetary system is messed up but moving back to the gold standard isn't much better. We have moved into a new stage of human development and as such we need to reassess everything. But there is no way this will ever happen. I'm beginning to think obama is not going to follow through on a lot of what he promised and is just going to play the middle ground. shame too... I was hoping maybe we could start looking at things differently.

[Tom Lowe]

I think we just have to recognize that it isn't "us versus them" --it's all "us".

Actually, the Founders of this nation studied history very carefully before deciding to write a powerful Consititution designed to limit government power. They studied the ancient Greeks, the finest philosophers, and the long, unbroken history of power gravitating toward a central government, leading to tyranny.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." George Washington

Most of the Founders including Jefferson felt this way. It is the same way that many libertarians feel today.


In terms of the Madoff scandal, was the problem corruption, incompetence, lack of resources, or simple lack of interest on the part of regulators? All of the above? Was the SEC more or less 'strangled' by being underfunded and then led by people who fundamentally did not really believe in the importance of regulation? Or were they bought off? Or were they just bad at their jobs?

I've heard it said that a 5th-grader with a calculator could have discovered Madoff's ponzi scheme in 10 minutes. How on Earth he evaded the SEC is mind-boggling! Most of the people at SEC are life-long bureaucrats.

I'm not against regulation, I just think that regulation should be kept simple and focused on preventing fraud. Take AIG for example. Why not pass a law that says you cannot write insurance policies (credit default swaps) for more than 2:1 leverage? Banks are required to keep a certain percentage of accounts on hand in liquid assets, in case everyone wants to withdraw their money at the same time. These are simple, anti-fraud measures.

Of course, even with this you have to be careful. What if Bank A has 2:1 leverage, and their competitor bank B as 3:1 leverage. What if Bank A lobbies congress to pass legislation changing the rules so that a 2:1 leverage is the maximum allowed? This would effectively bankrupt Bank B. It just goes to show you that every time you give government power, you make an incentive for corruption or worse.

Maybe it would be better if banks were transparent and issues like 2:1 leverage versus 3:1 leverage could be decided by those who are depositing their money in the bank? Without FDIC, they would have an incentive to read Consumer Reports once in a while and find out which bank is the most solid.

Obviously the FDIC was completely out to lunch on the mortgage meltdown, as well, which was partly the result of other government institutions like Fannie and Freddie and congressional pressure on banks to issue bad debt to unworthy borrowers. Not to mention the Federal Reserve pumping out trillions of dollars at 0% interest to broke Americans.

So, here we have the government creating a problem, and then telling us that the only solution is more government! This creates a dangerous positive freedback cycle for never-ending bigger government.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

Tom google two things:

Ivar Kreuger (One of the most extensive ponzi schemes in history)
SEC

Pay very close attention to the important dates.

For everyone else I'll save you the search:
Ivar Kreuger almost single handedly caused a global economic meltdown due to his collapsing quasi-ponzi schemes in 1932
The SEC was created in 1934 in an effort to PREVENT ponzi schemes because people weren't making the 5 second calculations to figure it out for themselves.

So your claim that the SEC and by extension regulation is causing ponzi schemes now is not based on any sort of empirical evidence.

It's also incredibly coincidental that we suddenly have all of these huge accounting scandals Worldcom, Enron, Madoff etc etc now that we've dramatically reduced all of the regulations after decades of relative calm.

[jpp]

So, here we have the government creating a problem, and then telling us that the only solution is more government! This creates a dangerous positive freedback cycle for never-ending bigger government.

This is, once again, circular reasoning. According to libertarian dogma, government interference in the economy is responsible for all structural marketplace failures. So, by definition, all structural failures are the result of government interference. No need to look any further, because, by definition.....

That the institutions which failed (at tremendous public expense) are the same institutions which have hobbled, disabled and corrupted government regulation doesn't seem to bother you.

The solution, as you see it, is to free these institutions of the need to corrupt government, so they can do what they want without bribing anyone. How this will prevent structural failure remains a mystery, only to be revealed when all government restraints are removed. If structural failure continues, it means, by definition, that all the necessary conditions weren't present, and was the fault of government.

Anyway, I think we're at the end of road. On the subject of movies, David's second Polish brothers Red feature, Stay Cool, premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival and the reviews were a bit kinder than they were for Manure, though again there was praise for the cinematography.

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I'm telling you. Warlock based economy. It hasn't gotten a fair chance. It'll work like magic! Never been disproven.

[jpp]

Without FDIC, they would have an incentive to read Consumer Reports once in a while and find out which bank is the most solid.

I know I should let it go, but....

There are many countries without government deposit insurance. Guess what? When the banks started failing, the governments all stepped in and guaranteed the deposits.

Why? Because the alternative was total collapse of the financial system. Because the banking system doesn't work without guarantees and high levels of confidence. People will keep their money in the mattress or precious metals, precipitating a crash.

I guess we've learned absolutely nothing about the way markets work.

[GlennChan]

He actually brought his finding to the SEC numerous times, and they ignored him!
I think THAT is the problem... not the size the SEC.

The SEC has actually reduced its staff over the last several years I believe, which makes it more difficult for them to investigate.

But the other real problem is that the incentives at the SEC are all wrong. They typically do not go after big fish and lay down huge fines so that they can get nice jobs at the investment banks they investigate. e.g. the investment banks repeatedly get slapped on the wrist by the SEC, and they give jobs to SEC employees likely as a reward for the weak punishments.

Another example: A lot of Goldman Sachs alumni are in positions of government now or came from the government. This creates serious conflicts of interest, especially when Henry paulson (ex-CEO of Goldman) help organize the bailout of AIG... which helps his buddies at Goldman, because AIG owed Goldman money over credit default swap contracts.

Point being that when government becomes too large, their actions often backfire and have unintended consequences.[.b]
In this case the SEC was getting smaller.

The SEC got smaller due to lobbying.

[b]I've heard it said that a 5th-grader with a calculator could have discovered Madoff's ponzi scheme in 10 minutes.
Those people are BSing you.

You needed to understand options well, and some of the calculations Harry Markopolos did are difficult to do on a calculator (e.g. calculating sharpe ratio).


So, here we have the government creating a problem, and then telling us that the only solution is more government!
The US (and many other countries but not all of them) have financial problems because:

A- Lax government regulation.
This allowed lenders to make a lot of bad loans without consequences, since they were able to securitize these loans and flip them onto another sucker.

The investment banks also had insufficient regulation... which let them take excessive risk and take on way too much leverage (e.g. 30:1).

B- Excessive debt. Consumers have been using their homes like ATMs and racking up credit card debt instead of saving money. The savings rate in the US is very low.

The US government is also taking on huge debt, which has recently tripled. Now the US administration is trying to solve the problems of too much spending and too much debt with more spending and more debt. This will not work.

---
Heading into the future, the US is probably digging a bigger hole for itself.
A- Protectionism. Protectionism is bad for the economy and was probably a major contributor to the Great Depression. Yet Obama looks like he will be implementing more protectionist policies.
B- Bailing out bad banks and failed financial institutions. These people made a lot of bad loans and mistakes... now the Obama administration is giving them more money. That is throwing good money after bad. Businesses have been failing for centuries and the world goes on... these guys should be allowed to fail.
C- The various bailouts are causing US debt to balloon. It's unsustainable.

While I think that the US is going to run into some serious trouble, it's not the end of the world. The US got through the great Depression, two world wars, etc. etc. If you have a job, employable skills, and live within your means (i.e. don't rack up debt)... you'll get through it fine.


Without FDIC, they would have an incentive to read Consumer Reports once in a while and find out which bank is the most solid.
That didn't work in 1929. And without the FDIC, bank runs will be much more likely.

[Joe G.]

"What amazes me, is the number of people who flat out do not have any understanding or knowledge of our monetary system, and why its important that we return control of it to the private public."

It's even more astounding that I already called out your blatant error and misunderstanding of the federal reserve (sic) system, and you keep on plowing away from a position of ignorance.

The Federal Reserve (sic) is a private, for-profit corporation with secret investors that operates in secret. This concept was fought tooth and nail, with several attempts by the "central bankers" over the course of US history on one side, and US presidents on the opposite side.

In 1913 Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act after it was passed over the Christmas holiday, when most of Congress was home, and not voting in opposition. This could be the greatest crime in American history.

There are several attempts by current Congressmen (including Ron Paul whom you should be acquainted with) to stop the Federal Reserve. Another attempt is to "audit" the secretive federal reserve.

The federal reserve is not federal, and it's not a reserve. That's the problem. Your argument presupposes that the government has control of the money supply, which is demonstrably false. Not sure why we have these discussions at all, since the words never seem to sink in or have any noticeable effect on misconceptions.

[Andrew Kimery]

As for this smoking example, I have this to say:

Who made you smoke?
This doesn't really mesh w/what was being said though. You said,

Again, this is more non-sense. If I kill off my customers, who in the world will I sell my product to? I'd be eliminating my market.
And I pointed out a product that if used 'properly' will most likely kill you yet the companies making said product have been around for decades.


-A

[Tom Lowe]

I know I should let it go, but....

There are many countries without government deposit insurance. Guess what? When the banks started failing, the governments all stepped in and guaranteed the deposits.

Why? Because the alternative was total collapse of the financial system. Because the banking system doesn't work without guarantees and high levels of confidence. People will keep their money in the mattress or precious metals, precipitating a crash.

I guess we've learned absolutely nothing about the way markets work.

Oh, man, now you're going to make me start quoting Osama bin Laden about the dangers of fractional-reserve banking. :yikes:

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread gracefully. It's just too detailed a conversation for here. Plus all my renders are almost done now, so I need to start working on editing and stop jabbering here! I have enjoyed the conversation, though, fellas! :thumbsup:

[Chris Nuzzaco]

"What amazes me, is the number of people who flat out do not have any understanding or knowledge of our monetary system, and why its important that we return control of it to the private public."

It's even more astounding that I already called out your blatant error and misunderstanding of the federal reserve (sic) system, and you keep on plowing away from a position of ignorance.

The Federal Reserve (sic) is a private, for-profit corporation with secret investors that operates in secret. This concept was fought tooth and nail, with several attempts by the "central bankers" over the course of US history on one side, and US presidents on the opposite side.

In 1913 Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act after it was passed over the Christmas holiday, when most of Congress was home, and not voting in opposition. This could be the greatest crime in American history.

There are several attempts by current Congressmen (including Ron Paul whom you should be acquainted with) to stop the Federal Reserve. Another attempt is to "audit" the secretive federal reserve.

The federal reserve is not federal, and it's not a reserve. That's the problem. Your argument presupposes that the government has control of the money supply, which is demonstrably false. Not sure why we have these discussions at all, since the words never seem to sink in or have any noticeable effect on misconceptions.

I have no misunderstanding for the umptenth time, I understand the federal reserve is private and have stated it is (go back and check).


It is technically private, however that is highly debatable as the President and Congress appoint its leader... so how is that private? Again, rabbit hole.

So there, I already pointed this out, prior to your other post if you take the time to have a look... I also pointed out the blatant political connection it has, which you seem to brush aside as if inconsequential. If a politician can appoint it's Chief, don't tell me you can't flex political influence over it. To think the Federal Reserve is totally free of political influence is naive, very naive. It says you totally trust our leaders. Have you heard much about Pelosi and torture lately? How about the Bush gang and torture? I'm just illustrating my point.

Either way you slice and dice it, we don't have control over our money, and thats a real problem. At lest we both agree the Fed needs to be eliminated.

[Chris Nuzzaco]

I think I'm going to bow out of this thread gracefully. It's just too detailed a conversation for here. Plus all my renders are almost done now, so I need to start working on editing and stop jabbering here! I have enjoyed the conversation, though, fellas! :thumbsup:

I'm with you Tom, it is very hard to explain this stuff because of all the strings attached. I suggest studying the library over at mises.org and really putting some time into it, especially the Austrian economics stuff.