As US cuts back, China aims to be top at science

Feb 19, 2011 by Karin Zeitvogel
This picture taken in 2009 shows a masked worker in a lab coat sorting silicon wafers at the manufacturing centre of solar cell maker Trina Solar in Changzhou. China has its eye on becoming the top science nation in the world, a position held for decades by the United States and European nations, researchers at a US science conference said Friday.

China has its eye on becoming the top science nation in the world, overtaking the United States and European nations, researchers at a US science conference said Friday.

After being the world's main source of cheap manufactured goods, China is investing heavily in and technology.

"China hopes to become one of the leading sources of intellectual property in coming years," said Denis Simon, a professor at Penn State University who is also the science and technology adviser to the mayor of the Chinese city of Dalian.

At a time when the and Europe are hamstrung by shrinking budgets, China has increased spending on science and technology "significantly," Simon said at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS).

"The Chinese have indicated that by 2020 they hope to spend around 2.5 percent of GDP () on research and development," said Simon.

In the United States, meanwhile, Republican lawmakers are talking about trimming a billion dollars from the National Institutes of Health, the world's largest public research institute, and slashing funds for other science and research agencies, in a bid to narrow a trillion-dollar US deficit.

That is at odds with the billion-dollar boost President proposed for science and health research in his 2012 budget.

The Republicans also want to slash funds for education by some $5 billion, even though Education Secretary Arne Duncan has warned that the United States must better educate its kids, especially in science and math, or risk becoming uncompetitive in the .

A report last year showed the United States has slipped from second place to 13th out of 34 countries in the number of students enrolled in university, and that it was stagnating in science teaching -- in 17th place -- and doing poorly in math, in 25th place.

The Chinese city of Shanghai, which was considered a country for the education report, made its debut in the rankings in first place.

More Chinese are enrolling in universities, which means there will "be more researchers in China than there are in the US," which will drive up Chinese scientific output and the quality of the reports, said Penn State professor Caroline Wagner at the AAAS meeting.

In another sign that China is serious about moving into the top slot for science, the number of quality scientific papers coming out of the country -- measured by how often they are cited in other studies -- is growing exponentially.

How often a peer-reviewed scientific report is cited by another scientist is considered a key measure of quality, Wagner said.

The number of Chinese papers being cited is up, while the number of citations of US or European reports is declining.

In sheer volume of work, China already produces more research papers in the fields of natural science and engineering than the United States, which is overall the biggest producer of scientific reports in the world, said Wagner.

"But based on current trends, China will publish more papers in all fields by 2015," Wagner said.

But there are obstacles standing in the way of China becoming the world's leading science nation.

Among them, has to overcome a massive brain drain, which sees nearly three-quarters of Chinese who travel abroad to study staying overseas, and a culture of fabrication and plagiarism among Chinese researchers, that Simon said could be driven by intense pressure and competition.

Explore further: Oceanographer Ballard elected to American Academy

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

US will no longer dominate science and research

Feb 18, 2011

A shift in the global research landscape will reposition the United States as a major partner, but not the dominant leader, in science and technology research in the coming decade, according to a Penn State researcher. However, ...

U.S.: China must 'crack down' on piracy

Nov 14, 2005

The Chinese government must "crack down" on piracy and enforce intellectual-property rights, the top U.S. trade official said Monday in Beijing.

Report: U.S. R&D publications decline

Nov 27, 2006

A science editor says the U.S. share of scientific papers published worldwide in peer-reviewed science and engineering journals is declining.

Recommended for you

Bloody souvenir not from decapitated French king: DNA

15 hours ago

Two centuries after the French people beheaded King Louis XVI and dipped their handkerchiefs in his blood, DNA analysis has thrown new doubt on the authenticity of one such rag kept as a morbid souvenir.

User comments : 343

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Vendicar_Decarian
2.3 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2011
"A report last year showed the United States has slipped from second place to 13th out of 34 countries in the number of students enrolled in university, and that it was stagnating in science teaching -- in 17th place -- and doing poorly in math, in 25th place."

That's Communist talk.
Watch Faux news and get the real facts.
America #1
zielwolf
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 19, 2011
Science only leads people away from God anyway, based as it is nowadays on evolution lies.
What we really need is some more Bible based science. In God we trust & c. It's a lot cheaper too.

America #1
ereneon
2.9 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2011
Shanghai is not a country, it is the richest city in China, so any comparisons based on Shanghai representing all of China are completely ridiculous. Only about half of the Chinese people even live in the world of the 21st century, the rest are stuck farming in polluted villages or working like slaves in poorly regulated factories, without access to clean water or good education. I'm sure the US will take the best spots too for every category they measured if we pick and choose the best places and say it represents the whole country.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.2 / 5 (9) Feb 19, 2011
Wouldn't have anything to do with the fact we spend billions and even trillions over the years in R&D, and then gave all the technology away for free....nah....

DARPA builds a space age parametric A.I. to help them design top secret devices for our defense, and then next thing you know, the specs for those devices are all over the internet. If they work, you just gave them to everyone else for free.
StandingBear
1 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2011
Persons who want to base science on the Bible may be in for a rude shock if they really read their Bibles....and see what it really says about man's origins and not what some concordance interpreter says. Read it in the Old Testament, especially the PentaTeuch..{I know the spelling is wrong of that). In the multiverse of worlds without end [.."in my Father's house are many mansions.."] there is ample room for God! And that last was from the New Testament. Jesus was an Orthodox Jew constantly on the run from the authorities, and had to speak in roundabout ways to escape persecution, and could not use his power to deflect those authorities without effecting the freedom of choice of multitudes of people. They had to use that freedom of choice so proper evaluations of them could be made when their time here was done...to do what they wanted to do when they thought the Eyes of God was not upon them. Hence the phrase in Mark....have eyes and do not see..
Space is our manifest destiny!
Sam_Herzig
2.3 / 5 (3) Feb 20, 2011
Nobody is better than anyone else. Use this knowledge and others will treat you with respect.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2011
Shanghai is not a country, it is the richest city in China, so any comparisons based on Shanghai representing all of China are completely ridiculous.
Do the MIT, Princeton, Harvard, and Yale represent the USA?

Whatever the university, the country - they all represent the planet.
It is ridiculous to be proud of the village one happens to reside in, especially if one is born there. We may enjoy our epoch and our vicinity but the only thing one might be proud of is one's personal behavior.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (10) Feb 20, 2011
What kind of science? Will the govt allow collaboration?

"Among the steps Beijing had to take to counter these risks, Hu said, one was "further strengthening and improving management of the Internet, improving the standard of management of virtual society, and establishing mechanisms to guide online public opinion.""
http:/chinadigitaltimes.net/2011/02/china-president-calls-for-more-internet-oversight/
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 20, 2011
Shanghai is not a country, it is the richest city in China, so any comparisons based on Shanghai representing all of China are completely ridiculous
Average per capita income of Shanghai.....1,033 USD.
Population of Shanghai....19,213,200

So Shanghai is not "rich" in any sense of the word compared to the US, and it is certainly large enough to be considered a country in and of itself when compared to EU countries for population.

Any better arguments?
paulthebassguy
5 / 5 (7) Feb 20, 2011
I get annoyed every time I hear about countries reducing their budgets for R&D and investment in science and technology.

It's so obvious that development of new technology is the catalyst for future prosperity. It has been proven many times in the past (starting with the industrial revolution). Why do these stupid narrow minded short sighted people think it's a good thing to cut these budgets for short term savings?!
maxcypher
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2011
Hey bassguy,
It's because the US (I assume that you're referring to my backwards-looking country) just voted in a horde of the worst kind of Christians: hate-mongering, mind-numbing propagandists who view science as the work of Satan.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.5 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2011
I get annoyed every time I hear about countries reducing their budgets for R&D and investment in science and technology.

It's so obvious that development of new technology is the catalyst for future prosperity. It has been proven many times in the past (starting with the industrial revolution). Why do these stupid narrow minded short sighted people think it's a good thing to cut these budgets for short term savings?!


More technology, particularly that which is widely available, would hurt the control structures in place. The people in power would lose power if we gain "Jetsons" style technology.
diego
4.2 / 5 (6) Feb 20, 2011
Unfortunately, Max is correct in his statement. U.S spend 46.5% of the worlds military expenditure in 2009, compared to the far distant second place china with a meager 6.6%. The amount of money the U.S. Government spends on it's military is apsolutely rediculous, not to mention borderline irresponsible. And of it's huge budget, the military wastes huge amounts of money on completely useless military hardware such as the fancy boat(aka amphibious assault vehicle). cost 9-11 billion dollors. Last time one of thes things were used? D-day WW2. When was the helicopter invented? After the war. Comprende?
illuminator
2 / 5 (2) Feb 20, 2011
How can the US compete with so many creationists still around? America is still #1, but for how long?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 20, 2011
It has been proven many times in the past (starting with the industrial revolution).

How much of that was funded by taxpayers?
The industrial revolution was funded by private enterprise.
Now the govt thinks it knows best what and were to 'invest'. Every time the govt tries to pick winners, it, and we, lose.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Feb 21, 2011
Every time the govt tries to pick winners, it, and we, lose.
That's fine and the government should keep on picking. People who confuse the Greek military junta of '67 til '74 with socialism ought to lose. For the better of mankind.
Sanescience
3.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2011
Science is a funny thing to measure, certainty money is one way, but how about applied value, or obstacles over come, or problems solved, or improvements made.

China had huge problems with IP also, their counterfeiting and industrial espionage is second to none.

And an there are stability issues, hardly a century has gone by without China descending into civil war of some kind or another. Which makes it all the more puzzling why world economies have allowed China to subsume whole industries for the sake of good relations. Next time China goes into the pot, boy is the rest of the global economy gonna get hurt.

And all this talk about China being an economic/science threat reminds me of when Japan was going to take over the world and everyone was going to be using their currency. Lots of fear mongering probably to try and increase the flow of money to their own projects.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2011
Every time the govt tries to pick winners, it, and we, lose.
That's fine and the government should keep on picking. People who confuse the Greek military junta of '67 til '74 with socialism ought to lose. For the better of mankind.

What winners have the govt picked?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Feb 21, 2011
It has been proven many times in the past (starting with the industrial revolution).

How much of that was funded by taxpayers?
The industrial revolution was funded by private enterprise.
That's false. The Industrial revolution was funded by the land owning nobility of England, France, and Spain initially. The US government was involved through the sales of permits and right to resource and the centralized funding of mineral exploitation. The English Nickel mines, American Steel, Belgian and German coal, etc. This was all funded in whole or in part by governments. Yet another one of your "free market" fantasies.
Now the govt thinks it knows best what and were to 'invest'. Every time the govt tries to pick winners, it, and we, lose.

Then explain the internet, interchangable parts, the success of Ford motorcar, etc. Is there any aspect of history that you don't completely fail at?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2011
"In the late 18th century, French gunsmith Honore Blanc proposed to the French army that he mass produce muskets. To prove that he could perform as he claimed, Mr. Blanc arranged a demonstration for the armors of Napoleon’s army. Using batches of interchangeable parts Blanc quickly assembled a number of muskets. "
"By 1806 the French government decided that Blanc was a threat to the states control of the means of production and a threat to the old crafts (guilds, unions). The system of production he helped pioneer was shut down and outlawed."
"To this day governments all over the world fear the mobility of production. Local content laws are still common. Statutes, regulations, bureaucracies and taxes are levied to control, and often hinder, production of goods in the most efficient manner. Certain classes of workers are protected and assisted to the disadvantage of other laborers. Winners and losers are chosen by bureaucrats who have never produced a single widget."
ref available
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 21, 2011
The US government invented Interchangable Parts. It was called "The American System" for many reasons. One of which was the standardization of mechanical parts across crafts. ie: All gears of a size and tooth count were designated A and were used in clocks, guns, carriages, watches, etc.

That was the government, not a French inventor who could standardize his gun parts. Standardized parts, as the French general proposed, had been evidenced since early Rome.

History is not properly contained in a wikipedia quote, Mr. Swenson. That is the difference between knowing something, and merely quotemining something like a parrot.

Would you care for a cracker?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 21, 2011
"In the rich world, meanwhile, the record shows, again and again, that industrial policy doesn’t work. The hall of infamy is filled with costly failures like Minitel (a dead-end French national communications network long since overtaken by the internet) and British Leyland (a nationalised car company). However many new justifications are invented for the government to pick winners, and coddle losers, it will remain a bad old idea."
"Officials ignore the potential for innovation in consumer products or services and get seduced by the hype of voguish high-tech sectors."
"Straightforward steps to improve the environment for business—less red tape, more flexible labour markets, simpler tax and bankruptcy regimes—will be more effective than handouts to favoured firms or sectors."
http:/www.economist.com/node/16743343
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 21, 2011
""I believe in competition," he said. "I believe when new entrants challenge big business, everyone wins. This hasn't always been the view of the government.

"In the 1980s, initially the government attempted to build British Telecom and Cable and Wireless into 'national champions' by sheltering them from competition.""
http:/www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11618436
There may be hope for the UK.

Not so much in the US.
"There is an overwhelming body of scholarly evidence (to which the Show-Me Institute has contributed) which supports the conclusion that whenever governments intervene in the marketplace in order to try to pick winners and losers, they almost always wind up picking losers and compounding failure."
http:/spectator.org/archives/2011/01/28/stop-trying-to-pick-winners-an
Obama: high speed rail, high speed wireless, wind, solar, kill oil drilling and coal mining....
ereneon
not rated yet Feb 22, 2011
Shanghai is not a country, it is the richest city in China, so any comparisons based on Shanghai representing all of China are completely ridiculous.
Do the MIT, Princeton, Harvard, and Yale represent the USA?

Whatever the university, the country - they all represent the planet.
It is ridiculous to be proud of the village one happens to reside in, especially if one is born there. We may enjoy our epoch and our vicinity but the only thing one might be proud of is one's personal behavior.


I actually totally agree with that. My comment was mostly expressing my dislike of how the mainstream media is hyping anything involving China and technology out of proportion by using deceptive information.
ereneon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 22, 2011
Average per capita income of Shanghai.....1,033 USD.
Population of Shanghai....19,213,200

So Shanghai is not "rich" in any sense of the word compared to the US, and it is certainly large enough to be considered a country in and of itself when compared to EU countries for population.

Any better arguments?


True, it is not rich by US standards, but it is still far richer than most other places in China, which is the point I was trying to make. China has one of the worst wealth disparity problems on earth, and much of that wealth is concentrated in the financial center of Shanghai. Also, when looking at China you need to consider purchasing power parity. You can live quite comfortably in China for what isn't even a living wage in the US. I base this on both economic data and my personal experiences in Shanghai and other places in China.
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (15) Feb 22, 2011
The CIA puts China's Gini coefficient at 41.5 and the US's at 45. The UN's basically got them flipped around, so if we average them out, the US and China have roughly the same wealth disparity. (A smaller Gini coefficient means less inequality)

And University admission and graduation stats aren't subject to the same pick-and-choose biases that afflict comparisons of primary and secondary education.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2011
When govt picks winners:
"Biden personally announced the closure of Solyndra’s $535 million loan guarantee in a Sept. 9, 2009 speech, delivered via closed-circuit television, on the occasion of the groundbreaking of the plant.

Instead, Solyndra announced on Nov. 3 it planned to postpone expanding the plant, which put the taxpayers on the hook to the tune of $390.5 million, or 73 percent of the total loan guarantee, according to the Wall Street Journal.

It also announced that it no longer planned to hire the 1,000 workers that Obama and Biden had touted in their speeches and that it planned to close one of its older factories and planned to lay-off 135 temporary or contract workers and 40 full-time employees."
http:/dailycaller.com/2011/02/22/panel-green-jobs-company-endorsed-by-obama-and-biden-squandered-535-million-in-stimulus-money/print/
kaasinees
3 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2011
The Republicans also want to slash funds for education by some $5 billion, even though Education Secretary Arne Duncan has warned that the United States must better educate its kids, especially in science and math, or risk becoming uncompetitive in the global economy.


I am not very familiar with American politics... but because of this i am now against republicans.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (25) Feb 23, 2011
The Republicans also want to slash funds for education by some $5 billion, even though Education Secretary Arne Duncan has warned that the United States must better educate its kids, especially in science and math, or risk becoming uncompetitive in the global economy.

I am not very familiar with American politics... but because of this i am now against republicans.
Because of one article and an admitted lack of knowledge about the situation, you're willing to let your opinion be changed? Would you consider yourself extremely gullible then? The US is out of money just like everybody else. This may or may not be the cause of this funding cut, if indeed there is one being proposed.
ereneon
4.5 / 5 (2) Feb 23, 2011
I don't think the US problem with education is due to lack of money. We spend more money per student than anyone else already. I think we have other structural and cultural issues to deal with.
kaasinees
2.9 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2011
Correct me if i am wrong, but wouldn't cutting back fundings in education affect science research in the long run? Most research is done at universities...
ereneon
4 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2011
The CIA puts China's Gini coefficient at 41.5 and the US's at 45. The UN's basically got them flipped around, so if we average them out, the US and China have roughly the same wealth disparity. (A smaller Gini coefficient means less inequality)

And University admission and graduation stats aren't subject to the same pick-and-choose biases that afflict comparisons of primary and secondary education.


I found similar Gini numbers. It's nice to run into people who do research ;-)

I don't think university enrollment is a good measure of education though. The education quality you get in Chinese universities is still not even close to what it is in the developed world. They mainly focus on memorization and following procedures, and largely ignore innovation and critical thinking. How many Chinese universities have you ever even heard of? Most Chinese people I have talked to know of tens of US schools.

ereneon
4 / 5 (1) Feb 23, 2011
Correct me if i am wrong, but wouldn't cutting back fundings in education affect science research in the long run? Most research is done at universities...


Research money and education money are not the same thing. NSF, NIH, DoE, DoD, etc. don't really count as education money, but they fund most of the research. The article says they are cutting science and research budgets as well though, which will definitely hurt as you said. When they refer to cutting education budgets, I think they mean department of education money.
kaasinees
2.8 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2011
But think about scholarships that allow people to get into universties. With the fundings cut down, will it affect those people that are smart enough for getting into universities. Will people be able to learn less? Will the schools support less people? etc..

Why doesn't the USA cut down the military budget in half in put that into science/education.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2011
The military is one of the best places for a science/technology education for those in uniform and those at the numerous research labs. The Navy funds a wind variety of research and development programs. AND it has helped to keep the peace in the world for decades.
kaasinees
3.1 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2011
Yeah right... making war in the east is considered peace? And where is the navy, with all these pirates? Even the Dutch do more against pirates, and that with just a helichopper.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2011
The Republicans also want to slash funds for education by some $5 billion, even though Education Secretary Arne Duncan has warned that the United States must better educate its kids, especially in science and math, or risk becoming uncompetitive in the global economy.


I am not very familiar with American politics... but because of this i am now against republicans.


You prefer socialists who suck all the money out of an economy?
Note that many elected democrats in the USA are refusing to do the job they were elected to do. Education budgets in WI, MI, IN and many other states are being drained by teacher's union demands. MI has ordered half the schools in Detroit to close.
The teacher's unions in the USA use the dues they extract from their members to fund democrat's campaigns and fight to keep bad teachers form being fired.
NYC schools have a 'rubber' room to keep teachers they can't fire. Thanks to democrats.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2011
"The roughly 700 workers accused of various wrongdoings collect their full salaries for spending seven hours a day in low-ceilinged, over-heated rooms, playing cards, doing puzzles, reading magazines and sleeping."
"Eighty-six have been collecting public salaries for more than two years while reading books, watching movies on portable DVD players or arguing with each other, according to a snapshot of employees assigned to the 14 centers across the city on one day - Jan. 29.

The data identify the longest-serving person stuck in a rubber room as a teacher who was accused of sexually abusing a child and yanked from his classroom 5-1/2 years ago.

Because the allegations were never proved, and because he refuses to quit his job, he collects his full annual salary - up to $95,000."

http:/www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/05/04/2008-05-04_teachers_in_trouble_spending_years_in_ru.html?page=2

Govt Motors had rubber rooms for their union members too.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Feb 23, 2011
I don't think university enrollment is a good measure of education though.
Which measures are better?
The education quality you get in Chinese universities is still not even close to what it is in the developed world. They mainly focus on memorization and following procedures, and largely ignore innovation and critical thinking.
How do you know?
How many Chinese universities have you ever even heard of? Most Chinese people I have talked to know of tens of US schools.
This is not a good measure of anything.
How many percent of those two countries know the language of the other country?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2011
"Sometimes it's necessary to get out on the streets and "get a little bloody," a Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday in reference to labor battles in Wisconsin."
http:/thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/145627-dem-lawmaker-on-labor-protests-get-a-little-bloody-when-necessary

How 'civil' of these democrats! And so soon after they demanded 'civility' after a member of Congress was shot and others killed in the attack.

"Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle."
http:/www.aei.org/article/103210
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2011
"Unions, most of whose members are public employees, gave Democrats some $400 million in the 2008 election cycle. The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, the biggest public employee union, gave Democrats $90 million in the 2010 cycle."
Unions are less than 15% of the workforce and are predominantly low-skill, low-wage service workers.

The Koch brothers are not low wage service employees, but billionaires who are attempting to seize control of WI's power infrastructure through the use of no-bid contracts provided by their puppet, Gov Walker. The very people who would be able to stop these actions are the public union employees who currently work at and maintain this infrastructure. If the Koch brothers want the power plants, they can deal with the unions and pay in full for their monopoly. Any other slant is obfuscation and cowardice, or in regard to Mr. Swenson (marjon), business as usual in Free Market America.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2011
"For the first time in American history, a majority of union members are government workers rather than private-sector employees,"
"Among government workers, union membership grew to 37.4 percent last year, from 36.8 percent in 2008."
http:/www.nytimes.com/2010/01/23/business/23labor.html

Govt employees are fully funded by taxes forcibly acquired by the various govts. Govt union are fully funded by govt employee dues that are forcbily extracted from their 'members'.
Unions fund democrat politicians who agree to raise taxes on those who create wealth, to increase the size and cost of govt increasing the number of govt employees (and govt union members) who then kickback more money to the democrat party. Quite a money laundering scheme.
As the USSR and every other socialist system has discovered, there is a limit to the number of parasites that can live of a healthy organism before the healthy organism dies.
Even FDR opposed govt unions.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 23, 2011
"PROVIDENCE — The school district plans to send out dismissal notices to every one of its 1,926 teachers"
"The city had a $57-million deficit last year and expects a higher figure for the year ending June 30"
http:/www.projo.com/news/content/providence_teacher_layoffs_02-23-11_MCML6R3_v17.1a1cc6d.html
"Gov. Scott Walker warned that state employees could start receiving layoff notices as early as next week if the bill isn't passed soon. "
http:/news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110222/ap_on_re_us/us_wisconsin_budget_unions
"Two-thirds of the eighth graders in Wisconsin public schools cannot read proficiently according to the U.S. Department of Education, despite the fact that Wisconsin spends more per pupil in its public schools than any other state in the Midwest."
http:/cnsnews.com/news/article/two-thirds-wisconsin-public-school-8th-g
"Michigan orders DPS to make huge cuts"
http:/detnews.com/article/20110221/SCHOOLS/102210355/1409/Michigan-orders-DPS-to-make-huge-cuts
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 23, 2011
Any points of your own to make? I'd rather not read recycled commentaries from journalists. I didn't come here for the assorted newspapers of the conservative press.

There's a difference between sourcing your opinion, and just repeating someone else's. Perhaps you need some more tim ein school yourself to learn that.

And again, as I said above, you're engaging in obfuscation and exemplifying cowardice.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2011
It's called data.

Only if the topic of conversation was propaganda. Within this conversation, it is merely noise.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2011
It's called data.

Only if the topic of conversation was propaganda. Within this conversation, it is merely noise.

Not a surprising POV from socialist exposed to data the once again destroys his socialist fantasy.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 23, 2011
It's called data.

Only if the topic of conversation was propaganda. Within this conversation, it is merely noise.

Not a surprising POV from socialist exposed to data the once again destroys his socialist fantasy.
Care to tell us what you mean by that?

You're the one who's supporting monopolization of energy generation. The Gov is threatening to fire people if they don't allow the government to take away their collective bargaining rights.

Tell me, what socialist fantasy do you think I have? You're the one who regaled us with a story of your work within the dairy conglomerate, your own little agreeable version of socialism.

You've now gone ahead and committed to supporting the very things you call socialist tyranny. Funny, isn't it.
frajo
5 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2011
It's called data.
No. It is called selected opinion.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2011
What opinion?
Providence, RI plans to fire all teachers at the end of the school year to help them banlance their budget.
The state of MI ordered Detroit to close half their schools to balance the budget.
WI plans to fire state employees to balance their budget.
States need to balance their budget and control expenses. They can't print money like the Federal Reserve does.
A city in AL had to stop paying the retirements for their former employees. They had no money.

With whom do govt employee union bargain? Politicians. In most cases, these politicians received most of their campaign contribution from these govt unions. You see no conflict of interest? Who represents the taxpayers, those who really pay?
Now some of those politicians, like the WI governor was NOT supported by the unions and a majority of the WI legislature does not owe the unions their office.
What a surprise, the democrats and unions NOW don't like democracy. They 'run away'.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2011
Employees in right to work states have the right to start a union and the right to join or NOT join a union.

It seems to me that it is the democrats and union thugs who want to take away a worker's right to support a union.
But then unions would have to demonstrate their worth to a worker. They would have to earn their business. I know, that is an alien concept to most of the statist socialists here.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2011
An axiom:

"We can't say we weren't warned. Thomas Jefferson, naturally, foresaw the consequences of unchecked entitlement. "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Read more: http:/www.nypost.com/p/news/national/gimme_culture_imperils_nation_XnN3czu1gW55IQffybRB3I#ixzz1EpDJxtlu
"
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2011
"A motorcycle policeman burns as his colleague tries to help him after protesters throw a Molotov cocktail at him in Athens."
http:/www.nypost.com/p/news/international/greece_violent_protest_zNb2ReivrzXw93mzPdiX4L?photo_num=4
This is the response the 'entitled class' in Greece have when their money runs dry.

The Greeks should have remembered Aesop:

"The Goose With the Golden Egg"
“GREED OFT O’ERREACHES ITSELF.”

http:/www.bartleby.com/17/1/57.html
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Feb 23, 2011
With whom do govt employee union bargain? Politicians. In most cases, these politicians received most of their campaign contribution from these govt unions. You see no conflict of interest?
You don't see a conflict of interest in allowing the Koch borthers to buy up the Union workers livelyhoods through no bid contracts after removing their ability to bargain for better wages? How about the fact that your Republican party seems to only be able to destroy jobs and remove rights. That's freedom for you, isn't it?

You're a troll. Back to the under-bridge with you.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 23, 2011
With whom do govt employee union bargain? Politicians. In most cases, these politicians received most of their campaign contribution from these govt unions. You see no conflict of interest?
You don't see a conflict of interest in allowing the Koch borthers to buy up the Union workers livelyhoods through no bid contracts after removing their ability to bargain for better wages? How about the fact that your Republican party seems to only be able to destroy jobs and remove rights. That's freedom for you, isn't it?

You're a troll. Back to the under-bridge with you.

What are you talking about?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 23, 2011
What are you talking about?
You should try a different radio station from time to time. Try listening to the ones that do news reports.

htp://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=5045

Read it and remember who YOU'RE voting for.
ereneon
not rated yet Feb 23, 2011
Which measures are better?
How do you know?
This is not a good measure of anything.
How many percent of those two countries know the language of the other country?


Actually I think measuring education overall is pretty difficult. There are many elements that go into a good education.

I know something about the Chinese education system (but am by no means an expert) because I have lived in China and work with many Chinese people who went to college there. My comment is based mostly on what they told me about their experiences.

I agree that having heard of Chinese or US universities is not something that can really be used as hard evidence, I was just trying to give an example. The article also states that China has big problems with fraudulent and low quality research, which also supports that pure enrollment is not a good measure of educational quality.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 23, 2011
Given the current economic conditions around the country, and the world, I bet the hard working people of WI appreciate any investment in their state:
"Flint Hills Resources, LLC, through its subsidiaries, is a leading refining and chemicals company. Its subsidiaries market products such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, ethanol, olefins, polymers and intermediate chemicals, as well as base oils and asphalt. A subsidiary distributes refined fuel through its strategically located pipelines and terminals in Junction City, Waupun, Madison and Milwaukee. Another subsidiary manufactures asphalt that is distributed to terminals in Green Bay and Stevens Point. "
"Since 2003, Koch companies have completed more than $32 billion in acquisitions and investments, and nearly $11 billion in capital expenditures. "
http:/www.kochind.com/factsSheets/WisconsinFacts.aspx
It is quite nice to see such a large company support capitalism instead of socialism as GE and others do.
Recovering_Human
not rated yet Feb 23, 2011
It's easy to catch up when you're behind; you merely have to copy. Breaking into the #1 spot is quite a different challenge.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 23, 2011
"One of the big problems with government
activities is that if something does not work,
rather than applying analysis to see why and eliminating it or changing it, the answer’s always, “Well, the reason it did not work is we did not put enough money into it.” That is crazy. It would be like having an experiment that failed and then building a full-scale plan."
"Businesses learn how to profit from government programs and build constituencies that make it impossible to get rid of them, whether it is protectionism or subsidies, or regulations."
http:/www.kochind.com/files/documents/AmericanThePrincipledEntrepreneur60807.pdf
Now I know why SH doesn't like Koch Industries.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 23, 2011
Well this is just my opinion, but the reason why Government doesn't work is that the upper income earners (more than you or I make) are not sharing in the burdens of need. Corporations that pay zero taxes, or like BP, just walk-in with promises of cheap oil, then kills the gulf with stupid engineering decisions and then walks away
Scott-free, hands clean. NOAA is left cleaning up BP's mess.

That is what republican represent. ryggesogn2, You are what is wrong with government. You are what is wrong with America.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (16) Feb 24, 2011
Basic Republican strategy: run on a platform that government is the problem. Use minor, everyday annoyances as evidence and gin up outrage over blatantly falsified and/or exaggerated mismanagement. Get elected. Obstruct any bill that will solve real problems. Cut taxes hugely on the very wealthy and moderately for everyone else and run up huge deficits, use huge deficits to cut existing programs that help people with real problems. Things get worse. Come up for re-election. Remark that you were right that government was the problem, and that government's getting worse, as evidenced by the deficit, which is why your constituent's problems are worse now. Point to the tax cuts you sponsored as evidence that you're really on the side of the little guy, and use your spending program cuts and obstructionism as evidence of your ongoing war on "teh ebil gubmint." Get re-elected. Wash, rinse, repeat.

frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2011
An axiom:
...
www.nypost.com
No. This isn't an axiom. It's called a quote.
If you want to know what an axiom looks like, see for instance Wikipedia on "Axiom of Choice".

If you want to see a meaningful quote, have a look at
truth-out.org/
uk-guardian-reports-raymond-davis-working-cia67951 .
Why is it meaningful? Because it's not the truth. But the US must take this stance in order to save a killer spy's neck.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2011
the reason why Government doesn't work is that the upper income earners (more than you or I make) are not sharing in the burdens of need.
Their burden lies elsewhere. See
truth-out.org/
nine-pictures-of-the-extreme-incomewealth-gap67743 .
TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (23) Feb 24, 2011
@Frajo
Why is it meaningful? Because it's not the truth. But the US must take this stance in order to save a killer spy's neck.
I read your 'Ministry of Truth' link and I must say, your acceptance of the 'killer spy' is indicative. Of what? Of gullibility of course. The scenario suggests that the ONE US spy was approached by TWO foreign spies to kill him, a more plausible deduction.

It is well-known through many sources that the Pakistan security agency is working ALL sides, as they were found complicit in the Mumbai massacre of 150++ unarmed civilians. Further, embassies are typically full of spies. So are news agencies, religious missions, etc. So what. They routinely kill each other. So what?

Your profound naivete leads you to assume that only the authority figures your dogma tells you to hate are the guilty ones. You forfeit countless opportunities to learn as a result.
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (15) Feb 24, 2011
A self-avowed conspiracy theorist accuses another of gullibility. That's rich. It's especially rich that you call him naive when you believe your own tran-generational ahistorical super-secret conspiracy that rules the world really is only after the long-term survival of the human race. A group of people, powerful enough to shape the most pivotal moments of human history and remain completely hidden, and they're the good guys. Now that's naive.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2011
That is what republican represent. ryggesogn2, You are what is wrong with government. You are what is wrong with America.

What's wrong with the USA today is too many are little pigs sucking at the teat of the state.
Until all you socialists understand that govt only TAKES wealth, the the jobs created by those 'evil' corporations will move to countries that understand profit and property rights and understand that it is the market that creates the wealth and jobs and taxes for the little pigs to suck on.
These ideas have been around for centuries and have been PROVEN to be true.
Jefferson, de Tocqueville and many others observations of the collapse of socialist states have been proven true.
kaasinees
3.1 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2011
@ryggesogn2, where did you get the idea that socialists do not want a free market? Republicans want to control the market.. how is that a free market? The republicans just want a republic government so that the rich can stay rich, and the poor stay poor.
Socialists want to give everyone a chance to prove what they are worth, a chance to make their life better.
A republican wont allow a poor man to become a billionair, unless he is part of their agenda.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2011
where did you get the idea that socialists do not want a free market?

That's what defines the socialist: govt control of property and markets.
A republican wont allow a poor man to become a billionair,


First, republicans are not monolithic. Many are called RINOS because they are statists and vote with democrats to increase the power of the govt by increasing spending. McCain is one example as are most New England 'republicans'.

Republicans like Ron and Rand Paul, Jim Demint, Jeff Flake, and a few others vote to limit the power of the govt to what is defined in the Constitution. They support private property rights and free markets.

Socialists want to give everyone a chance to prove what they are worth

How can they do that when socialist WANT everyone to have equal outcomes?
Socialist want to punish successful entrepreneurs with high taxes and regulations. They support regulations which limit incentive's to work hard and strive to prove what they are wor
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Feb 24, 2011
Socialists want to give ....

How can socialists 'give' unless they first TAKE?

The best a govt can do is create an environment in which everyone has the opportunity to be successful (as they, not the govt, defines).
This is accomplished by protecting an individual's right to property, to keep and control the wealth the individual creates. The govt needs to prosecute violations of that right without regard to wealth or political connections.
The democrats (socialists) support laws that force people to join unions and pay part of their wages, their property, to the unions. Unions inhibit their 'members' from working harder and smarter than their fellow members by promoting based upon time in service, not by proving what they are worth.
kaasinees
3.7 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2011
That's what defines the socialist: govt control of property and markets.


wrong...

A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.


Anything else you say about socialism is completely dumb since you dont even know what socialism is.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2011
That's what defines the socialist: govt control of property and markets.


wrong...

A socialist society is organized on the basis of relatively equal power-relations, self-management, dispersed decision-making (adhocracy) and a reduction or elimination of hierarchical and bureaucratic forms of administration and governance; the extent of which varies in different types of socialism.


So you say.
That not the definition used by many expert economists.

Anything else you say about socialism is completely dumb since you dont even know what socialism is.

It seems you are the ignorant one. I suggest "Socialism" by Mises or 'The Road to Serfdom' by Hayek.

kaasinees
3 / 5 (12) Feb 24, 2011
So economists are politicians now?

Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 24, 2011
So you say.
That not the definition used by many expert economists.

It seems you are the ignorant one. I suggest "Socialism" by Mises or 'The Road to Serfdom' by Hayek.
Perhaps you should learn the difference between economists and heterodox economists.

I don't listen to Oliver Manuel about stellar evolution because he doesn't seem to understand how it works.

When you use fringe experts to establish the basis of an argument you automatically submit that you're an extremist.

MNilton Friedman himself stated that Hayek and Mises were incorrect for two reasons. 1) The never, ever use math or econometrics to define what they're talking about. 2) Austrian theory submits that consumption increases during economic recession.

Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (16) Feb 24, 2011
Yet more evidence that marjon's gubmint hate and "free-market" worship are bunk? GM's profitable again, just two years after the fed's bought 'em out and reorganized to prevent them from going bankrupt. In fact, this is the most profitable year for GM in 10 years, so much so that they were able to send out about $4000 in profit-sharing checks to more than 40000 employees. According to marjon, this shouldn't happen.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2011
"F.A. Hayek is not only the leading free-market economist; he has also led the way in attacking the mathematical models and the planning pretensions of the would-be "scientists," and in integrating economics into a wider libertarian social philosophy. "
"Hayek's first monumental contribution to economics was his development of the "Austrian" theory of the business cycle, based on the pioneering outline of Mises. Appearing in the late 1920s, on the basis of which Mises and Hayek were among the very few economists in the world to predict the 1929 Depression"
"the importance of the Hayek theory of the business cycle is that it puts the blame for the boom-bust cycle squarely on the shoulders of the government and its controlled banking system"
http:/mises.org/daily/4082

Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2011
"F.A. Hayek is not only the leading free-market economist; he has also led the way in attacking the mathematical models and the planning pretensions of the would-be "scientists," and in integrating economics into a wider libertarian social philosophy. "
Pons and Fleischman did some pioneering research into nuclear energy generation, unfortunately without the math, or any notes, the system was found to be utter fantasy, just like the Austrian school of economics.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2011
"One of Friedman’s most disastrous deeds was the important role he proudly played, during World War II in the Treasury Department, in foisting upon the suffering American public the system of the withholding tax. Before World War II, when income tax rates were far lower than now, there was no withholding system; everyone paid his annual bill in one lump sum, on March 15. It is obvious that under this system, the Internal Revenue Service could never hope to extract the entire annual sum, at current confiscatory rates, from the mass of the working population. The whole ghastly system would have happily broken down long before this. Only the Friedmanite withholding tax has permitted the government to use every employer as an unpaid tax collector, extracting the tax quietly and silently from each paycheck. In many ways, we have Milton Friedman to thank for the present monster Leviathan State in America."
http:/www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard43.html
Why SH likes Friedman.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2011
None of your post above speaks to anything other than your blind hatred of paying your taxes. Mr. Rockwell has to rely on the vonMises Institute so he can sell books to pay for his undergrad English degree. Yes, English degree, not even an associates in economics.

Of course, what more would you expect from a bunch of anarchists from Alabama. Hell Marjon, they even preach AGAINST democracy and the ideals of a republic.

If you want to be a serf that badly, jsut move to your idyllic Somalia.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2011
"ANOMALOUS EFFECTS IN DEUTERATED SYSTEMS"
Miles, M. and K.B. Johnson, Anomalous Effects in Deuterated Systems, Final Report. 1996, Naval Air Warfare
Center Weapons Division.
NAWCWPNS TP 8302

"Excess power was measured in 28 out of 94 electrochemical experiments conducted using
palladium or palladium-alloy cathodes in heavy water."

What comes first, the observations or the equations?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2011
None of your post above speaks to anything other than your blind hatred of paying your taxes. Mr. Rockwell has to rely on the vonMises Institute so he can sell books to pay for his undergrad English degree. Yes, English degree, not even an associates in economics.

Once again, SH cannot defend his statist/socialist fantasies.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2011
Once again, SH cannot defend his statist/socialist fantasies
That'd be because I don't have any.

If you want to have a conversation about economics, make sure you've actually read something on the topic.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 24, 2011
Once again, SH cannot defend his statist/socialist fantasies
That'd be because I don't have any.

If you want to have a conversation about economics, make sure you've actually read something on the topic.

If the professional economists you admire are so smart why is the economy so bad and why can't they fix it?
Thrasymachus
2.4 / 5 (16) Feb 24, 2011
If the professional economists you admire are so smart why is the economy so bad and why can't they fix it?

Maybe because you conservative politicians prefer to fix economic policy according to the poetic nonsense of people like von Mises and Hayek rather than science? At least you're consistent that way, seeing as you prefer the poetry of the bible to the science of biology as well.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2011
If the professional economists you admire are so smart why is the economy so bad and why can't they fix it?

Maybe because you conservative politicians prefer to fix economic policy according to the poetic nonsense of people like von Mises and Hayek rather than science? At least you're consistent that way, seeing as you prefer the poetry of the bible to the science of biology as well.

So you can't think of any favorite economist that predicted the current economic condition or one who has a proven plan to fix it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (24) Feb 24, 2011
@Mr Bile
A group of people, powerful enough to shape the most pivotal moments of human history and remain completely hidden, and they're the good guys.
Correct.
Now that's naive.
Naive is when someone believes that only bad evil dudes make it to the top, because the tv and the movies and their liberal arts educations and their myopic deluded philo priests tell them so. That's the prevailing conspiracy theme, isn't it? Including the one you ascribe to?

I like how you show up any time there is a beat-down of some individual the scooby gang doesn't agree with. Canines do tend to run in packs.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Feb 24, 2011
So you can't think of any favorite economist that predicted the current economic condition or one who has a proven plan to fix it.
Peter Schiff, Nouriel Roubini, and George Magnus all come to mind.

Then again, even Bill Maher predicted this economic crisis.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2011
"Hayek and von Mises’ work is echoed in modern Austrians, such as Peter Schiff, who argued recently: “What the government is going to do is to turn this into an inflationary depression which is going to be much, much worse.... Even President Obama will acknowledge — and Ben Bernanke acknowledges — that we got into trouble by borrowing and spending too much money. The solution isn’t to go borrow and spend even more, the solution is that we do the opposite.” Like Hayek in 1932, Schiff is making the same economic analysis: “Unfortunately, as painful as it is, the recession is what we need. The recession is the market’s way of curing the economy. And the more the government interferes with the recession, the worse we’re making the problem.”"
http:/www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/3323-austrian-economics-rising
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2011
So you can't think of any favorite economist that predicted the current economic condition or one who has a proven plan to fix it.
Peter Schiff, Nouriel Roubini, and George Magnus all come to mind.

Then again, even Bill Maher predicted this economic crisis.

Why haven't they fixed it?

Why haven't YOU fixed it?
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2011

Why haven't YOU fixed it?

"Rockwell explains the actual lure of Keynesian economics: “Most economists are interested in working for the government and therefore they are not in free markets, but in running your life. "
http:/www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/economy/economics-mainmenu-44/3323-austrian-economics-rising
I do what I can.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Feb 24, 2011
I do what I can.
Yep. Everytime you post, more people on the fence recognize that you, and your ideology, are ridiculously insane.

The best part of freedom of speech is that the clowns like you continue to amuse us for free.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 24, 2011
The best part of freedom of speech is that the clowns like you continue to amuse us for free.

And of course you are free to ridicule instead of justifying your failed statist positions.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 24, 2011
The best part of freedom of speech is that the clowns like you continue to amuse us for free.

And of course you are free to ridicule instead of justifying your failed statist positions.

Like I said, comedy gold.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2011
"The government's estimated cost of bailing out the mortgage giants far exceeds the $132.3 billion they have received from taxpayers so far. That would make theirs the costliest bailout of the financial crisis."
http:/hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_EARNS_FREDDIE_MAC?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-02-24-16-27-3
The is the inevitable result of the statism SH and many others here favor.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2011
Koch brothers are attacked by the left (by Soros fronts) but Soros is praised?

"So, yeah. The big-government policies advanced by the liberal outfits he funds -- like Center for American Progress -- will enrich the companies in which Soros is investing.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http:/washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/new-soros-hedge-fun-profiting-obamas-green-energy-push-hires-top-#ixzz1Ewrbw5rq
"
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Feb 25, 2011
Walker isn't calling Soros to tell him, rather enthusiastically, about how he's going to cut jobs to force capitulation of the public.

That's tyranny.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (26) Feb 25, 2011
If the professional economists you admire are so smart why is the economy so bad and why can't they fix it?

Maybe because you conservative politicians prefer to fix economic policy according to the poetic nonsense of people like von Mises and Hayek rather than science? At least you're consistent that way, seeing as you prefer the poetry of the bible to the science of biology as well.
This is coming from someone who believes in bankrupt nonsense like 'free will' which has been thoroughly discounted SCIENTIFICALLY, like most metaphysical philo tripe. You evoke science withno understanding of it. It is only more poetry for you.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2011
Walker isn't calling Soros to tell him, rather enthusiastically, about how he's going to cut jobs to force capitulation of the public.

That's tyranny.

What are you talking about?
Try to find a source that is not funded by the fascist Soros.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2011

What are you talking about?
Try to find a source that is not funded by the fascist Soros.
You're calling one of the first hedge fund managers, and a holocaust survivor, a fascist.

Drink that kool-aid, drink it in deep Mr. Swenson.

The source is the phone conversation that Walker himself engaged in. The one his office acknowledged. The one I linked for you above.

You suffer from FOX news reality disorder. Don't like reality? Make some shit up and pretend it's real. That's the Jon Swenson way.
GSwift7
4.2 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2011
When I stop seeing Chinese and other foreign students coming to US universities to get a good education I'll worry about it. I don't see that happening in my lifetime. They don't even allow their researchers open access to the internet. Get real.
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (15) Feb 25, 2011
Top American universities will probably remain the among the top universities in the world, but the problem is with second and third-tier institutions. Many international students are choosing to study in European schools rather than the average public universities in the States. This is because these universities are having to tailor their education to the demands and abilities of average American high-school graduates. Needless to say, these demands of late have become selfish and short-sighted, and their abilities have atrophied to match.
frajo
5 / 5 (2) Feb 25, 2011
When I stop seeing Chinese and other foreign students coming to US universities to get a good education I'll worry about it. I don't see that happening in my lifetime. They don't even allow their researchers open access to the internet. Get real.
How good is a researcher who does not research the use of VPN?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2011
60 Min, December 20, 1998
"KROFT: (Voiceover) You're a Hungarian Jew…

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

KROFT: (Voiceover) …who escaped the Holocaust…

(Vintage footage of women walking by train)

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Mm-hmm.

(Vintage footage of people getting on train)

KROFT: (Voiceover) …by–by posing as a Christian.

Mr. SOROS: (Voiceover) Right.

KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. Yes.

KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

Mr. SOROS: Yes. That's right. Yes."

Is this what you mean by a Holocaust survivor?

Soros was trained by the experts.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2011
From an SH PM: "One would have to wonder why you've decided to engage me in private messages."

I will be happy to open the conversation to all.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2011
"Communist and socialist groups — including the Maoist Revolutionary Communist Party, the Communist Party USA, Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party and the Democratic Socialists of America — are voicing their support for the public-sector unions protesting Wisconsin Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s plans to curtail their collective bargaining abilities.

The communist and socialist groups have parroted many of the union talking points being used by the unions on their websites and in their publications, such as those accusing the governor of trying to break their unions. They have also compared Walker to former Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak.

Read more: http:/dailycaller.com/2011/02/25/communists-socialists-rallying-support-behind-madison-protests/#ixzz1F0zAJLRv
"
Anyone surprised?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 25, 2011
The business method favored by the Chinese and SH:

"Somehow, that little company got personal endorsements from both President Obama and Vice President Biden. Biden appeared at the company and told them:
You are making some of the most energy efficient windows in the world. I would argue THE most energy efficient windows in the world.
How did he know? And of all the window companies in America, why does just that one get Presidential and Vice Presidential attention, plus a special tax credit? Maybe because Serious executives gave thousands of dollars to the Obama campaign? Maybe because the energy department official who gives out government grants, Cathy Zoi, is the wife of the Vice President of Policy of Serious Windows?

No. Probably had nothing to do with it."

http:/stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2011/02/24/crony-capitalism-again/
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 25, 2011
George Soros -- whom we're always told is not serving his own economic interests at all by promoting liberal politicians and big-government policies -- is launching a new investment fund that plans to profit off of the "green energy" boom…”

The press release casually mentions whom Soros is hiring to run this new fund: Cathy Zoi.

The very same Cathy Zoi whose husband’s company got all that help from the administration? You bet.

Read more: http:/stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2011/02/24/crony-capitalism-again/#ixzz1F14vpJAW

If Soros didn't have the govt mob behind him, I wonder how rich he would be?
frajo
5 / 5 (5) Feb 25, 2011
I will be happy to open the conversation to all.
Unfortunately, first you'd have to understand the difference between conversation and preaching.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2011
I will be happy to open the conversation to all.
Unfortunately, first you'd have to understand the difference between conversation and preaching.

So, please, have a conversation using facts and data to support your socialist positions.
Physorg.com is making weak attempts by posting weak articles like 'union members (in Europe) are happy' or 'right wing Finns are more attractive'.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 25, 2011
How govt regulations are killing the economy:

"Firms are reluctant to undertake risky long-term investments because they continue to view the future with major misgivings, owing to the unsettled condition of future government actions with regard to health care, financial regulations, energy regulations, taxation and other matters that have serious business implications.

Although ObamaCare and the Dodd-Frank financial "reforms" were approved by Congress and signed into law last year, these massive statutes leave scores of important details awaiting determination by administrative agencies and courts. This doesn't create a climate conducive to aggressive investment.

A substantial, rapid recovery of net private business investment probably won't occur until the made-in-Washington clouds clear. Meanwhile, overall economic prospects will remain gloomy."
http:/www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=564111&p=2
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Feb 25, 2011
@ryggesogn2, I don't see our government regulations killing the economy. I see a drawback of industry due to 1st, global competition, cheap labor and all of that. I do not fault the Chinese for it, nor our government. It just a bubble in the way capitalism works and it won't change until we innovate our way out of it. Unless we shoot ourselves in the foot and fire teachers, let math, science and engineering slip, not help people get into college, then America will sink.

ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (14) Feb 25, 2011
I don't see our government regulations killing the economy.

That's not what those who create the wealth in the US economy are stating.
How high will taxes have to be raised to cover the unfunded teacher retirement plans around the USA? Why should any business want to invest and grow if they have no idea how high their taxes will be to cover Obama care and teacher retirements and other govt union retirees?
The only way the US or any economy can innovate themselves out will be to have stable, predictable govt tax and regulatory policies.
Giving special deals to friends of Soros and Obama does not help.
let math, science and engineering slip,

It has already fallen flat on its face mostly due to poor quality teachers, texts, methods and motivation.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 25, 2011
Data, again on solutions to improve economies:
"We are drifting back toward the situation of Britain in the 17th century, when sovereigns would devalue their currencies on a whim. Just as was the case then, nobody finds this out of the ordinary. The idea of a stable, gold-linked currency is as bewildering today as it was when Locke pitched it in the 1690s."
"To whom do you pay attention? The people who delivered results? Or today's economists, who talk a big talk, but have never--not even for a few moments--matched the astonishing genius of the men in tights."
http:/www.forbes.com/2011/02/24/economics-john-locke-opinions-contributors-nathan-lewis_2.html
The statist socialists can't allow a stable currency as they will lose power.
Howhot
2 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2011
@ryggesogn2, "The statist socialists can't allow a stable currency as they will lose power" ???? Ok... well then...

Howhot
2 / 5 (4) Feb 26, 2011
Quote of the night shall be: "astonishing genius of the men in tights" Lol.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2011
Quote of the night shall be: "astonishing genius of the men in tights" Lol.

They were quite intelligent regardless of their clothing and hairstyles don't you agree?

As for controlling the currency, suppose the govt borrows a barrel of oil, or an oz of gold or the eqivalent dollar value of each commodity at an interest of 5%. In ~15 years, the govt will owe ether two barrels of oil, two oz of gold or double the money value.

1995 2010
oil $16.00 $80.00 (1 bbl)
gold $400.00 $1,120.00 (1 oz)
money $16.00 $32.00
$400.00 $800.00

Looking at the chart above, if you were the govt, what would want to pay back? The govt would have to come up with $160 to pay you back in oil, $2240 to pay you back in gold or $32 or €0. Only a govt can steal money this way.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2011
Correction to above:
"The govt would have to come up with $160 to pay you 2 bbl of oil at 2010 prices, $2240 to pay you back 2 oz of gold at 2010 prices or $32.00 to pay you back your $16 or $800.00 to pay you back your $400 with interest."

What a way to steal money!
Howhot
2.4 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
Well let us see. GW paid us, $300 buck in a tax refund. Doesn't that cover the bill? No that was just spending the surplus that was left to him. In the mean time, you don't get rich. I don't get rich.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2011
Well let us see. GW paid us, $300 buck in a tax refund. Doesn't that cover the bill? No that was just spending the surplus that was left to him. In the mean time, you don't get rich. I don't get rich.

What does this have to do with govt inflating the currency?
Keynsian policies fail regardless of who is president.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2011
What does this have to do with govt inflating the currency?
Keynsian policies fail regardless of who is president.
He had to borrow the money to give you that $300 check. That would be a direct example of currency inflation. Perhaps you should actually learn the economic system before you critique it.
fuviss_co_uk
4.8 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2011
China aims, and probably will be the first, but who cares ? Is it bad ? We all live in one world Earth, and we should cooperate not fight for the first or second place, it is not the point.
Science is for us all, when something will be discovered, developed in some country, sooner or later it will appear in whole world
(internet, cars, computers as an example)
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (12) Feb 26, 2011
What does this have to do with govt inflating the currency?
Keynsian policies fail regardless of who is president.
He had to borrow the money to give you that $300 check. That would be a direct example of currency inflation. Perhaps you should actually learn the economic system before you critique it.

No, that was not inflation. That was money being returned to the taxpayers.
The inflation occurs when the govt devalues the dollars by increasing the supply of dollars in the economy as they do with and an easy money policy by the federal reserve and fractional reserve banking.

Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2011
No, that was not inflation. That was money being returned to the taxpayers.
The inflation occurs when the govt devalues the dollars by increasing the supply of dollars in the economy as they do with and an easy money policy by the federal reserve and fractional reserve banking.

So when the government borrows up to 90 billion dollars to send out in $300 checks, where do you think that money comes from?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Feb 26, 2011
China aims, and probably will be the first, but who cares ? Is it bad ? We all live in one world Earth, and we should cooperate not fight for the first or second place, it is not the point.
Science is for us all, when something will be discovered, developed in some country, sooner or later it will appear in whole world
(internet, cars, computers as an example)

Nuclear weapons....
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2011
So when the government borrows up to 90 billion dollars to send out in $300 checks, where do you think that money comes from?

It is coming from the thin air. The fed is monetizing the debt.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2011
So when the government borrows up to 90 billion dollars to send out in $300 checks, where do you think that money comes from?

It is coming from the thin air. The fed is monetizing the debt.

And what causes inflation?

That's right, creating money out of thin air, ie: borrowing cash to fund tax credits and breaks, which increases the money supply, causing inflation. You've disproved your own argument while proving mine. Welcome to economics 101.

Your ideology enables the bank takeover of the government and inflation of the debt and money supply. Any more insights?

Here's one for you. If printing off more money to fund spending programs, tax breaks, and tax credits is bad for the economy. Where would the government get money from to pay off the debt? Taxing the companies and the rich individuals. Hey look at that. Sound monetary policy is jsut a tax hike away.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2011
Borrowing does not create inflation.

Taxing the companies and the rich individuals.

Let the govt take all the money and see how hard people will work to earn more.

Sound monetary policy would be to stabilize the value of the currency and cut the size of the govt, limit the power and scope of the govt to create 2000 page bills no one reads and that require thousands of new govt employees to interpret and administer.
But, SH supports unfettered govt regulations and therefore unlimited govt size and power: socialism.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Feb 26, 2011
Borrowing does not create inflation.
Borrowing dollars from a bank for interest is THE cause of inflation. Paying it back and reducing the money supply is deflation.

This is basic economics.
But, SH supports unfettered govt regulations and therefore unlimited govt size and power: socialism.
If you call actual economic understanding by the moniker of socialism, then you'd be correct. I can never really understand Jon Swenson definitions. Must be all the politician in you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (26) Feb 26, 2011
Uh, overpopulation causes inflation, more and more people chasing dwindling resources, does otto preach only to only himself here??

More money is printed and loaned to enable this to occur. It can be considered as the process of regulating a naturally-occurring phenomenon. Like a dam. A dams net profit is electricity. Without the dam there would be only periodic flooding and ruination. As meltwater needs to be controlled to protect investment, so do people, and if one is smart one can profit from doing so.

Dams have a finite life and get all mucked up and eventually must be dismantled, like most everything.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 26, 2011
Borrowing dollars from a bank for interest is THE cause of inflation.

How?
A bank has 1 oz of gold and lends that 1 oz of gold to you at 5% interest. One year later you repay the bank 1.05 oz of gold, or the bank lends $100 to you and one year later you repay the bank $105. There is no inflation unless the govt devalues the currency by printing more.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 26, 2011
the bank lends $100 to you and one year later you repay the bank $105. There is no inflation unless the govt devalues the currency by printing more.
And where did the additional $5 come from, idiot?

How can you ever try to talk to other people about the economy when you don't know how interest and inflation are linked. The only reason interest exists is to make more currency to enable lending. I'm in awe at how someone can be so stupid and think they're an authority on a topic.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Feb 26, 2011
And where did the additional $5 come from, idiot?

Profit.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2011
And where did the additional $5 come from, idiot?

Profit.

/facepalm.

So in your reality the government is paying the federal reserve interest in goats and chickens?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2011
The govt pays in inflated dollars, which is why they inflate.

Loans used to be repaid with the profit they earned from investments made with the borrowed money. There was no inflation caused by this as banks could not loan more assets than they owned.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.5 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2011
The govt pays in inflated dollars, which is why they inflate.
Inflated dollars? Like blow up balloons?
There was no inflation caused by this as banks could not loan more assets than they owned.
So you also don't know what fractional reserve lending is. You're just completely ignorant of how money works. Now I understand why you hold the economic stance you do. You just don't have any iota of accurate information on the topic.

Explain your mechanism by which inflation happens or stfu.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2011
I know exactly how fractional reserve works. My example above does not assume fractional reserve banking.

Inflation occurs when the govt prints more money making it less valuable.

Skeptic_Heretic
3.1 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2011
I know exactly how fractional reserve works. My example above does not assume fractional reserve banking.
Then you're talking nonsense, as usual.Our economy doesn't do that, nor does it work that way. You are proving yourself to be dumber and dumber, especially when you say silly shit like
There was no inflation caused by this as banks could not loan more assets than they owned.
Which is wrong. So now you call it a hypothetical. The only part you got right is that your knowledge is pathetic.
Inflation occurs when the govt prints more money making it less valuable.
And in our economy, that is done by borrowing currency from the federal reserve.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Feb 27, 2011
The economy now works on govt controlled fiat currency. Which is what SH likes as the govt can devalue the currency.

In my example above, maybe using gold is easier for you to understand.

You lend me 1 oz of gold from your pile, I invest that gold, say in mining equipment to get more gold or in seed to raise crops. In one year I return your 1 oz of gold with .05 oz of gold for your opportunity cost of not having that 1 oz of gold in your pile for a year.
Where is the inflation?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.3 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2011
You lend me 1 oz of gold from your pile, I invest that gold, say in mining equipment to get more gold or in seed to raise crops. In one year I return your 1 oz of gold with .05 oz of gold for your opportunity cost of not having that 1 oz of gold in your pile for a year.
Where is the inflation?
Our economy doesn't operate on gold. The various gold windows of the world are closed. There is not enough gold on the planet to sustain a global economy. I don't prefer FIAT currency, but until a system is developed that can replace FIAT, that will be the currency based economy we live under. I asked you direct questions about our current economy, which you seem to like to talk about a lot. We've discovered that you do not have the knowledge necessary to engage in economic discussions that involve real economic systems.

This means you are ignorant of the topic of conversation, which is the real world economy.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 27, 2011
Your claim that loaning money creates money depends upon a fractional reserve system, an artificial system imposed and regulated by govts and can be changed.
The act of loaning money, whatever you choose to use, does not create money and inflate the money as you assert.
Howhot
2 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2011
I'm not an economist but, I've always associated inflation with demand needs on commodities. Like, oil. Every time a crisis occurs with oil producing nations, it effects gas prices, the food prices, the housing prices. Other commodities don't seem to do that. Gold, is outside of that as a financial instrument. It has become just an market of speculation, and that's about all. It's a hedge that anyone would buy gold. Then it's also a hedge to by Fine-Art. Inflation comes from demand, cost of goods... etc, etc.

Where @ryggesogn2 and the other are screwy on is the difference between inflation, and wealth generation. Wealth, creation, is not just individual, it can be nation wide, and it that concept of good will wealth generation that needs to be developed.
Wealth needs to come from something other than oil. It needs to created from green technology and making human hands busy.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 27, 2011
I'm not an economist

Obviously. Inflation, or deflation, is caused by the supply and demand of money.
Progressives love minimum wage laws. Why not increase the minimum wage to $100/hr? After a very short period of time, the price of everything will adjust to account for that change.
"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the Capitalist System was to debauch the currency. By continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, and important part of the wealth of their citizens." Keynes

Wealth creation starts with the individual.

What is 'good will wealth generation'?

Do you work for free? Do you produce products and services to give them away and expect someone else to feed you, house you and clothe you?

Adam Smith stated it quite well: " It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Howhot
2.6 / 5 (5) Feb 27, 2011
What is 'good will wealth generation'? It's just something I've heard about; it's wealth generation based on the good will of man to his fellow man, as apposed to screw you over capitalism where a few control the many by oppression, either economic stress or by force. I always hated Adam Smith. He wanted everyone to live like peasants and slave for a few. He have would have hated the collective bargaining powers of Unions.

And, you must be a mean individual if you an not empathize with with minimum wage earners with your 100/hr comment. The point of minimum wage is to maintain a bare minimum that stays tied to inflation (which it has not). I know it puts wage pressures on the middle, but it doesn't effect the top at all. The top never experiences inflation.
Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Feb 27, 2011
You know, I don't know jack about economics, but I do know this. China gets it. You have to build and MAINTAIN a middle class if you wish to grow economically. We have done a good job for about 150 years and even better with the New Deal economics by FDR.

frajo
5 / 5 (2) Feb 28, 2011
Do you work for free?
Yes. I'm not being paid for doing the work of reading and writing. Not even for the difficult work of reading and writing in a non-native language.

Don't you read and write for free?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2011

even better with the New Deal economics by FDR.

Better than what? Calvin Coolidge did a wonderful job.

China gets this:

"There is a sense among companies that (the USA) is a difficult a difficult place to do business. It is about regulation, taxation, seemingly anti-business policies in Washington, attitudes towards science.".
"Politicians forget that business has choice. We’re not indentured servants and we will do business where it’s good and friendly. "
"We are now exporting science overseas to China, India, Germany, building labs there. There’s a good strategic reason for it, but we also have no choice – if we can’t get the people here and we’re competing with the people there, we have no choice but to do it locally. "
http:/www.ft.com/cms/s/0/bd9b4100-429b-11e0-8b34-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1FFt6oZJH

Socialism destroys the middle class. Liberty expands the middle class.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2011
"The New Deal was paid for mainly by the middle class and the poor."
"...investment was at historic lows during the 1930s. Without investment, it was virtually impossible to create new jobs. Economist Lester Chandler observed, “The failure of the New Deal to bring about an adequate revival of private investment is the key to its failure to achieve a complete and self-sustaining recovery of output and employment.” {Sounds like Obama today, discourage business investment.}
http:/www.fff.org/comment/com0903n.asp

The New Deal was a bad deal for 'the middle class'.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Feb 28, 2011
@SH: "The latest conspiracy theory being peddled is that the key to Gov. Walker's budget is a provision authorizing the state to sell power plants it owns, with Koch Industries supposedly scheming to buy them up cheap."
"Never mind that the proposal has been around for years, that there is zero -- absolutely no -- evidence to support such a claim or that Koch Industries has said it has no interest in Wisconsin's power plants. For some {like SH}, apparently, conspiracy theories trump reality."
"What's really going on here is an attempt to silence people whose views liberals disagree with."
"attacking the Koch brothers serves not only to change the subject, but perhaps to scare off other wealthy conservatives who might consider participating in the political process.

Instead of trying to silence them (Kochs), perhaps we should listen to what they have to say about how free enterprise creates wealth, and how government can both be restrained and made more efficient."
http:/www.aolnews.c
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2011
Your claim that loaning money creates money depends upon a fractional reserve system, an artificial system imposed and regulated by govts and can be changed.
The act of loaning money, whatever you choose to use, does not create money and inflate the money as you assert.

No, I assert that Federal Reserve interest is a vehicle of inflation. You disagree because you don't understand how money is created or destroyed within a FIAT system.

You are now making things up and creating your own windmills.
Koch Industries has said it has no interest in Wisconsin's power plants.
Then why are they hiring plant managers in Wisconsin?
ttp://www.thinkenergygroup.com/think.nsf/J/84239?Opendocument
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2011
No, I assert that Federal Reserve interest is a vehicle of inflation.

NOW you assert this. You were not clear the first time you claimed the simple act of loaning money creates money..

"Energy client is looking for experienced Plant Managers for multiple power plants located in Wisconsin."

The employer is not specified.

"The second of two 615-megawatt coal-fueled units at the company's Oak Creek expansion site attains commercial operation on Jan. 12. "
http:/www.wisconsinenergy.com/aboutus/history.htm
Maybe this company is hiring?
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2011
"Gov. Scott Walker's proposal to sell heating and cooling plants could generate hundreds of millions of dollars, but stronger pollution rules that govern the aging facilities could make them less attractive to potential buyers."
"Madison Gas & Electric Co. is a potential buyer, given it already has facilities in downtown Madison and has worked with the state on the natural gas-fired cogeneration facility built several years ago to serve UW-Madison."
"A similar proposal was inserted into the 2005-'07 budget by Republican Rep. Scott Jensen. The plan, vetoed by then-Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, would have led to the outsourcing of 271 state government jobs.

Several state power plants are under scrutiny because of their air pollution, raising a question about how marketable they may be."
http:/www.jsonline.com/business/116204654.html
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2011
2010: Wisconsin Energy completes the sale of Edison Sault Electric Company to Cloverland Electric Cooperative of Dafter, Mich., for $61.5 million."
2007:Wisconsin Energy completes the sale of Point Beach Nuclear Plant to FPL Energy, for approximately $924 million.

http:/www.wisconsinenergy.com/aboutus/history.htm

Koch Ind did not buy these plants. Why?
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Feb 28, 2011
Koch Ind did not buy these plants. Why?
They didn't have the benefit of the newly minted (read:2011) Walker no-bid contracts.
NOW you assert this. You were not clear the first time you claimed the simple act of loaning money creates money..
No, you're lying again. Start reading, from the top. If you're too impatient to do so, try this exchange, (you were a participant)
Inflation occurs when the govt prints more money making it less valuable.

And in our economy, that is done by borrowing currency from the federal reserve.
Clear enough for you?

Now you went ahead and looked it up, finally, and determined I was correct, and you were not. So now you start the infamous Jon Swenson backpedal.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2011
SH: "Borrowing dollars from a bank for interest is THE cause of inflation. Paying it back and reducing the money supply is deflation."
Only in a fractional reserve system.
In my detailed example, I did not assume fractional reserve banking.

How do you know Koch Ind. is hiring a plant manager? Your source was not clear, but that is not surprising coming from you.

As noted in the news article, the power plants for sale do not look like a great deal for anyone. Which is why the state has been trying to sell them. Of course one reason they want to sell them is the costs to comply with federal EPA regulations are not certain.
And this is another typical example of the socialist regulatory state.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Feb 28, 2011
"I worked for a few years in radio here in San Francisco. Membership in AFTRA was MANDITORY in order to be on the air. There was NO CHOICE. Without getting into a lot of detail which isn’t important, the AFTRA here is totally lame. Many lay-offs have occurred at stations here, and the union is powerless to do anything about it. The only people the union here has helped is people who were hired in the 80s and early 90s. At one particular station, there is a group of those longer-term employees who bargained themselves into a “special” class a few years ago—higher pay, protection from lay-offs, priority in choosing shifts, etc. The new people at that station are TOTALLY SCREWED by the union rules, and would be better off under state law if there was no union."
http:/www.uncoverage.net/2011/02/broadcasters-and-the-aftramalkinfox-kerfuffle/
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2011
The above post was meant for a different article.
Can't delete it.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
Only in a fractional reserve system.
In my detailed example, I did not assume fractional reserve banking.
But we were talking about the real world, not Swensonland. You did not know what you were talking about. More of the infamous backpedal.
How do you know Koch Ind. is hiring a plant manager? Your source was not clear, but that is not surprising coming from you.
The source was the job posting section of a Koch industries website looking for a power plant manager in WI. How much clearer do you need it?
Of course one reason they want to sell them is the costs to comply with federal EPA regulations are not certain.
No, that would be the reason why no one wants to buy them. As for uncertain, the estimates are well vetted and available from Wisconsin Power.
And this is another typical example of the socialist regulatory state.
More Jon Swenson lies.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2011
The source was the job posting section of a Koch industries website

No, it was not.

But we were talking about the real world,

Again, the simple act of loaning money does not create inflation. Only govt sanctioned fractional reserve banks can create money.
So all you 'progressives' who complain about 'free markets' in banks, recall how they controlled by the govt. and do not represent free markets.
The socialists favorite whipping boy, Somalia, has no inflation. Their currency has the value of its cost of printing.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (24) Mar 01, 2011
Uh, overpopulation is what ultimately causes inflation, is what many (Malthusian) economists believe.
http
://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2011/02/commodity_price_inflation

Money can be printed and available for use, but it is only demand which places it in circulation. Why invest in new ventures if there is no demand for them? Does investment create demand or demand create investment? I would say the latter. More money chasing fewer commodities only happens if there is a demand for those commodities.
http
://www.fxstreet.com/fundamental/analysis-reports/global-research/2011/02/09/
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (24) Mar 01, 2011
Overpopulation: "...a condition where an organism's numbers exceed the carrying capacity of its habitat."
http
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overpopulation
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2011
Why invest in new ventures if there is no demand for them?

Where was the demand for Facebook?
Entrepreneurs create demand for products and services no one ever knew they needed or wanted creating new industries expanding the economy and wealth.

IF not controlled by the govt, the value of money, what can be purchased, is subjective.
The paper currency used in Somalia has a fixed value, the cost of production, and there is little concern over counterfeiting as the cost of producing the counterfeit currency will out weigh the value of the bill.
Thrasymachus
2.4 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2011
Wealth is simply the ability to command resource you don't have any use for, so you are willing to trade that command of resources for a command of different resources. More precisely, wealth is the ability to command resources whose use value is less than their exchange value.

Money is simply a representation, in itself worthless, of the ability to command resources. The original source of money was every single individual. Money is simply an IOU. If I raise chickens and you raise corn, but don't have any chickens ready yet and need corn to feed 'em, then I give you an IOU for for some chickens you can have when they're ready, and you give me corn now. That IOU is original money. Because there are as many currencies as goods and services, exchange rates become a nightmare to navigate. The sheer weight of convenience leads people in a market to use only one set of IOUs representing a single good as the medium of exchange.

(cont)
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2011
Historically, this has been gold, for a variety of reasons. Inflation now can only be caused by an increase in the supply of gold, or a decrease in the supply of everything else. But when the economy becomes large enough, no single good can reasonably back the medium of exchange. Moreover, this good is susceptible to the vagaries of supply and demand as well, meaning unexpected inflation and deflation are inevitable.

Floating currencies are an attempt to recapture the power of original money. Overall market inflation or deflation cannot occur with original money, though a currency representing a specific commodity might inflate or deflate, that inflation and deflation is always balanced by the relative in/deflation of competing currencies. (cont)
Thrasymachus
2.6 / 5 (11) Mar 01, 2011
Since we can't have currency competition to regulate inflation/deflation, and the money supply has been centralized to goldsmiths, who have since become banks, and been nationalized due to the importance of their market role and the ease with which they can manipulate the market for their own private gain, the solution is to back currency with all the commodities at once, similarly to how they were originally. If new money is created at the same rate as new commodities, no inflation should occur.

And since this new money is supposed to be backed by new commodities, the most straightforward method is to create it as interest on debt. People borrow money to (ideally) make money, and if no one defaulted on their loans, inflation would once again not occur. Inflation in a fiat currency like ours is a matter of the relation between the interest rate and the default rate. (cont)
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2011
And finally, since all banks' deposits are insured by the Federal Reserve, and all loans have to be backed by deposits (10% of the loan must be in deposits) every single loan those banks make contributes to the inflationary picture. If they make loans that tend to get paid off, they aren't contributing much to inflation. If they make loans that tend to default, they are contributing greatly to inflation.

And Malthus has widely been debunked as a predictor of anything more than the math of exponential population growth. His theories barely work for bacteria in a petri dish, and work not at all on humans. Population growth doesn't contribute to inflation because most industrial nations aren't growing.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2011
The source was the job posting section of a Koch industries website
No, it was not.
Think Energy Group is a subsidiary of Koch Chemical Industries LLC. You should really read things that rebutt your stance so you don't look like an ass.
But we were talking about the real world,
Again, the simple act of loaning money does not create inflation.
Yes it does.
Only govt sanctioned fractional reserve banks can create money.
All banks are fractional reserve, every institution that deals within the US has to be Government sanctioned. Ever heard of a Federal Tax ID?

Your propaganda is wearing thin.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.9 / 5 (23) Mar 01, 2011
Wealth is simply the ability to command resource you don't have any use for, so you are willing to trade that command of resources for a command of different resources.
-So in unpretentious-speak you would be saying that the wealthy use their wealth to buy things they neither want nor need?
wealth is the ability to command resources whose use value is less than their exchange value
-Oh so youre saying that the wealthy acquire things they dont want or need instead of things they do? Im confused.
His theories barely work for bacteria in a petri dish, and work not at all on humans. Population growth doesn't contribute to inflation because most industrial nations aren't growing.
Ah but they are my vacuous friend. Indigene pops have stabilized but these nations are being flooded by the overflow from those that havent. Explosive growth is causing shortages of staples throughout the world and prices are rising as a direct result.
http
://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.7 / 5 (23) Mar 01, 2011
And Malthus has widely been debunked as a predictor of anything more than the math of exponential population growth.
Not so fast Hermes. That used to be the fashionable opinion back when your opinions vitrified, but the political climate has changed. Malthus is back! Hes kind of hard to ignore given all the overpop-induced revolutions taking place in the middle east.

Even your socialist-colored buddies are mentioning it in reference to islamic unrest:

"...a demographic bulge that is producing mass unemployment among the young..."
http
://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2011/02/max-weber-and-the-middle-east.html#ixzz1FOvcpd4l

-Although they rarely have the stones to mention it by name, or acknowlege its true significance. Their elders are not yet dead are they? But they HAVE to mention it or risk credibility because it is so damn OBVIOUS, as it should be to you. But it isnt. Why is that?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 01, 2011
Hes kind of hard to ignore given all the overpop-induced revolutions taking place in the middle east.
Eh, what? The Middle East is FAR from overpopulated.
a demographic bulge that is producing mass unemployment among the young..."
I.E. 50% of the population is under 35, primarily due to constant warfare, expulsion, poor, lack of education, in some cases cash subsidy based on number of offspring, etc.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 01, 2011
"ThinkJobs.com, ThinkJobs, Thinc, Technical Jobs Fast, Technical Staffing Fast and ThinkEnergyGroup
are registered trademark's ® of Think Resources, Inc."
http:/www.thinkenergygroup.com/think.nsf/dav2?searchview&Query=([SearchField] CONTAINS (Plant Manager)) AND ([CompanyState] CONTAINS (WI)) AND ([JOStatus] CONTAINS HOT) AND ([Form] = JOweb )&SearchFuzzy=FALSE&Count=300&Start=1&SearchMax=10000&SearchOrder=3&tit=Plant Manager&state=WI&frm=hppersonal1

"Think Resources, a Randstad company 2009"
http:/www.thinkresources.com/tr.nsf/Welcome.xsp

"Randstad’s governance structure is based on the requirements of Dutch legislation, "
http:/www.randstadannualreport.com/annual-report-2010/fGovernance.CorporateGov/aDU1038_corporate-governance.aspx

Think Energy Group is a subsidiary of Koch Chemical Industries LLC

Really?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2011
Again, the simple act of loaning money does not create inflation.


Yes it does.

How does loaning money in a non-fractional reserve system create inflation? NO new money is created.
The lender withdraws money from his account and loans it.
The lender debits his account and the borrower has a credit in his account. The money supply has not changed.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 01, 2011
How does loaning money in a non-fractional reserve system create inflation? NO new money is created.
100% of the money in the system comes from a bank. That bank charges interest on all loans it makes to other banks and to individuals and corporations in order to make a profit.

Explain to us, from where the money to pay the interest comes from, assuming all loans are paid in full, without creating more money.

Interest creates a requirement for the money supply to increase over time, dummy.
Think Energy Group is a subsidiary of Koch Chemical Industries LLC

Really?
No, but it's nice to see you actually look something up for once.

Now who solicited that job posting from think energy? Your google skills up to task?
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2011
It's true, all interest paid back on loans is new money. However, new money does not necessarily cause inflation. It is presumed that if the borrower generated enough value that he was able exchange that for money to pay back the loan plus interest, that the new value he created is enough to back the new money. The overall proportion of valuable goods/services to money remains the same. Inflation is caused by default. Since bank deposits are insured by the FDIC, new money is printed by the government to cover the deposits that would otherwise have been lost to the default. And since the reserve is fractional to 10%, a defaulted loan can inject up to 9 times the amount of the deposits that backed it in new money into the economy.
Thrasymachus
2.3 / 5 (12) Mar 01, 2011
And while it's in the depositor's interest that default doesn't occur, it's not in the bank's interest, because all money eventually ends up back at the bank. They make more money by having a certain level of defaults, not too high, so that they can attract depositors, than they do by not having any defaults at all. The public, however, including depositors, doesn't benefit from defaulting loans, which is why banks need to be strictly regulated in terms of their lending practices to absolutely minimize default.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 01, 2011
Thras, I think that is debatable depending on multiple other relevant factors. For example, a decrease in monetary supply with a corresponding decrease in the price of goods is not inflation. However, an increase in monetary supply will undoubtedly create a increase in prices as the total supply of money will effective devalue the purchasing power per unit of currency. This creates an increase in prices due to monetary availability, therefore it is manifest that an increase in monetary supply without a decrease in demand per unit of goods will undoubtedly result in inflation.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 01, 2011
No, but it's nice to see you actually look something up for once.

Lying AGAIN. I am not surprised you are a 'progressive'. The only way socialism can be sold is with lies.

Interest creates a requirement for the money supply to increase over time,

No, it does not. Creating more wealth motivates the creation of new money if the values of goods and services are to remain constant. If money supply stayed constant, and wealth increases, the value of money increases, decreasing prices.
So it is desirable for an economy to increase the supply of money to maintain a constant value. Trouble is the govt wants to decrease the value of the money so it can steal wealth from its citizens without formal taxes.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2011
Swenson, go back to the book store and learn basic economics before you continue in this conversation. You've already shown that your severely limited understanding prevents you from being able to contribute.

Seems to be a common thread in your conversations as you told us on another thread that you think the Inuit people have been raising pigs and cattle for thousands of years.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2011
More lies from SH: fat and lies about money.
Seems to be a common thread in defense of your 'populism'.
Thrasymachus
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2011
In the long term, only an increasing ratio of money to non-money commodities can cause inflation. Short term inflation can be caused by just about anything, which is why near-term inflation predictions always factor in the velocity of money as well as its overall proportion. Since money doesn't make its way through an economy evenly, quick changes in the ratio of money supply to non-money commodities don't effect pricing all that much, and hit areas with high money velocity first.

But the underlying, long term driver of inflation is the creation of new money that's not backed by new value. Paying back the interest on a loan is only possible if you create enough new value to exchange for money to pay it off. A paid off loan doesn't contribute to long-term inflation, no matter the interest rate, because the new money is backed by the new value. Only defaults inject money that's unbacked.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2011
The spike in oil prices due to political instability in the middle east has been referred to as 'inflation' by those who should know better.
That is not inflation.
Inflation IS caused by the oversupply of money printed by the govt.
Only defaults inject money that's unbacked.

IFF the govt covers loses.
If the govt does not cover loses, lenders (and their depositors) must be more concerned about risk and getting paid back. Imagine that, a bank worrying about risk.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (11) Mar 02, 2011
"In Deep Freeze, economists Philipp Bagus and David Howden demonstrate that the real cause of the calamity was bad central bank policy. Rates were way too low, banks were too big to fail, housing was implicitly guaranteed, and banks were borrowing short term from abroad to finance long term bonds. "
"The Iceland Freeze is one of the great historical cases that makes Mises’s point. Let it always serve as a reminder of what happens when the laws of the market are papered over by politicians and central bankers. "
http:/mises.org/store/Deep-Freeze-Icelands-Economic-Collapse-P10454.aspx
But US bankers and politicians are smarter than those in Iceland?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 02, 2011
More lies from SH: fat and lies about money.
Seems to be a common thread in defense of your 'populism'.

Only thing fat in this conversation is yourself. Your ideology of monetary policy died with the thousands of citizens and immigrants during the Great Depression in Hooverville. Thank you drive through.
In the long term, only an increasing ratio of money to non-money commodities can cause inflation.
You're neglecting value and demand. I don't disagree in general, but I think you're oversimplifying the equation.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 02, 2011
The Great Depression that was CAUSED the Federal Reserve monetary policy and socialism?

"Let me end my talk by abusing slightly my status as an official representative of the Federal Reserve. I would like to say to Milton and Anna: Regarding the Great Depression. You're right, we did it. We're very sorry. But thanks to you, we won't do it again. "
http:/www.federalreserve.gov/BOARDDOCS/SPEECHES/2002/20021108/default.htm

Promises, promises.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 02, 2011
The Great Depression that was CAUSED the Federal Reserve monetary policy and socialism?
Are you asking a question or inventing a strawman?

Don't worry, next time you try to refresh your little position in Chelmsford, someone will ensure that your commentary on this forum is public record. Enjoy losing that pension.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 02, 2011
The Great Depression that was CAUSED the Federal Reserve monetary policy and socialism?

As the great one said "There you go again". Your so good batting around the word socialism, tell me how Socialism was even related to the Great Depression. I really would like the hear this gem.
Thrasymachus
2.5 / 5 (13) Mar 02, 2011
Of course, inflation typically just means increasing prices. There are lots of reasons prices can increase in specific markets, or decrease in specific markets. But on the assumption that new money is only created if it's backed by new value, price inflation in one market must be matched by price deflation in others. Overall price inflation, where prices in every market increase over time, can only occur if unbacked money is systematically injected into the economy.
Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Mar 02, 2011
You know, the best description for the cause of inflation (for me at least) is stored and described in a video at the Kahn Academy. htp: //www.khanacademy.org/. He has some of the best lectures on economics I've see. Bottom like from that is, during good economic time, there is always a small amount of inflation caused just buy the process of stocks and bonds being bought and sold. He also discusses deflation (as what occurred during the great depression) and its results on business.

It's very interesting subject.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 03, 2011
"Did Hoover really subscribe to a hands off the economy, free-market philosophy? His opponent in the 1932 election, Franklin Roosevelt, didnt think so. During the campaign, Roosevelt blasted Hoover for spending and taxing too much, boosting the national debt, choking off trade, and putting millions of people on the dole. He accused the president of reckless and extravagant spending, of thinking that we ought to center control of everything in Washington as rapidly as possible, and of presiding over the greatest spending administration in peacetime in all of history. Roosevelts running mate, John Nance Garner, charged that Hoover was leading the country down the path of socialism. Contrary to the modern myth about Hoover, Roosevelt and Garner were absolutely right."
"It was not the free market that produced twelve years of agony; rather, it was political bungling on a scale as grand as there ever was."
http:/blog.acton.org/archives/2685-reeds-classic-piece-on-hoover-fdr-and
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2011
Mr. Swenson, as you have already horridly mangled FDR quotations in the past to attempt to make it appear as though FDR hated collective bargaining, I think your commentary immediately above can be easily ignored without need for refutation. That and I'm fairly sure those few who would agree with you, already saw it on FOX.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 03, 2011
"It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.

That wasnt Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955."

"Meticulous attention, the president insisted in 1937, should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. The reason? F.D.R. believed that [a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to obstruct the operations of government until their demands are satisfied. Such action looking toward the paralysis of government by those who have sworn to support it is unthinkable and intolerable.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http:/washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/worth-recalling-fdr-was-no-fan-public-employee-unions#ixzz1FaJAlAFP

Howhot
4 / 5 (8) Mar 03, 2011
Always amazing @ryggeson how dingy you sound. Labor is what built us, and you just want it gone. Disgusting you are.

In another sign that China is serious about moving into the top slot for science, the number of quality scientific papers coming out of the country -- measured by how often they are cited in other studies -- is growing exponentially.


Enjoy your world.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 04, 2011
Labor is what built us,

Who is 'us'?

I 'labored' on a farm from age 6 until 18. At 10 I was milking cows. Cows don't take vacations and need to be milked twice a day EVERY day.
I know all about real labor. That is what really built the USA: a solid, entrepreneurial work ethic, not union jobs that restricts simple actions like plugging in an extension cord to an electrician.
That's why when given the choice of joining a union, most who want to work do NOT join.

Those who are so worried about 'quality' science papers from China should start a union of scientists if unions are so critical to success.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (9) Mar 04, 2011
Labor is 'us, You know, "We the people of this world". Yeah, and I worked on a farm too. So what, and I know all about real labor too. I'm also an entrepreneur, and know work ethic. Unions are an extension of the dignity of man to his fellow man. It is not as you so stupidly describe:

union jobs that restricts simple actions like plugging in an extension cord to an electrician.


You have no clue about the value of labor, collective bargaining or the strength that labor gave to build this great country, the USA. Labor built America.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 04, 2011
Labor is what built us,

Who is 'us'? I 'labored' on a farm from age 6 until 18.
That's a lie.
At 10 I was milking cows.
Another lie.
Cows don't take vacations and need to be milked twice a day EVERY day.
Special education students recognize this, you're not building a pedigree with us saying this.
I know all about real labor.
You're a do nothing politician in Chelmsford, you know nothing of actual labor.
That is what really built the USA: a solid, entrepreneurial work ethic, not union jobs that restricts simple actions like plugging in an extension cord to an electrician.
You mock Union workers when someone like you wouldn't be able to survive without union labor.
That's why when given the choice of joining a union, most who want to work do NOT join.
More lies from Jon Swenson, Agricultural board memeber of Chelmsford MA. Call his office and express your displeasure with his public lies.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2011
Unions are an extension of the dignity of man to his fellow man.

How dignified is it to force your fellow man to join a union in order to earn money from his labor and force him to give up the fruits of his labor to elect politicians he does not support?
Why must unions use coercion to keep members?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2011
How dignified is it to force your fellow man to join a union in order to earn money from his labor and force him to give up the fruits of his labor to elect politicians he does not support?
Why must unions use coercion to keep members?
You always attempt to make it look as though there is coersion, and liberty defeating mechanisms built into social policies, yet you support every politician that attacks the sovereign individual's ability to be a sovereign individual.

You accuse me of statism, yet you're the one calling for someone to assume control of the state and pass oppressive liberty restricting laws. You want the government in our bedroom, so they can tell us who to love and how, you want the government in a woman's womb so they can tell her what to do abouut a pregnancy, and as evidenced on this very thread, it is you who wants the government to take away the power of the individual to work with others and ensure contractual compliance of the workplace.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2011
make it look as though there is coersion,

That's because there IS coercion.

You want the government in our bedroom, so they can tell us who to love and how,

Why is that?

The prime function of govt is to defend human life. Promoting the murder of babies by their mothers abdicates that function.

It is the govt that is hampering the individual who wants to work by forcing some to join a union or forcing a business to pay a minimum wage. These actions by the govt eliminate jobs.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2011
The prime function of govt is to defend human life. Promoting the murder of babies by their mothers abdicates that function.
So you want to cut the assistance given to the poor, who are by far the leading demographic when it comes to abortion.

So if you require the poor to carry a child that they can't afford to properly care for, what do you think the social, medical, and economic effects will be? You so often shit on the poor, and tell us that they don't deserve to get any help what so ever. Then you tell us that the government's role is to protect life, (which is wrong but that's a whole other conversation).

So how are you suggesting we protect the lives of the poor? As so far you suggest that we cut all financial, medical, and social aid to the poor. Do you understand yet? Do you recognize that you are effectively damning the country to an ever greater number of social, medical, and economic maladies? How stupid are you?

ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2011
There are many religious organizations who will support women who do not want to kill their babies.

Since your an atheist, you completely disregard the possibility that people will care for each other and default to statist solutions which leads down the path to tyranny.

frajo
5 / 5 (4) Mar 05, 2011
Since your an atheist, you completely disregard the possibility that people will care for each other and default to statist solutions which leads down the path to tyranny.
Since you are against freedom from religion you completely disregard the possibility that people will not care for each other and default to irrational positions which lead down the path to an antisocial society, to suppression of the weak majority, to social unrest, to expulsion and sometimes even elimination of the 1 percent minority who, in the meantime, amassed 90 percent of the society's wealth by exploiting the weaknesses of the majority.

Because you cannot fool all of the people all the time.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2011
"You say: There are persons who have no money, and you
turn to the law. But the law is not a breast that fills itself with milk. Nor are the lacteal veins of the law supplied with milk from a source outside the society. Nothing can enter the public treasury for the benefit of one citizen or one class unless other citizens and other classes have been forced to send it in." http://www.fee.or..._Law.pdf

you completely disregard the possibility that people will not care for each other

I don't, but obviously Frajo does.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (21) Mar 05, 2011
On a mildly relevant note, it seems the pentagon is reading ottos posts. Good for them.

"The mathematics of our $75 trillion Social Security and Medicare deficits often seem insurmountable, but can be recalibrated. However, the war-loving mindset of Americas neocons fueled by Chinas military actions, the insatiable expansion of our military spending and a Pentagon prediction that global population growth is putting more and more pressure on the worlds scarce resources, and will, in turn, increase global wars and the demand for more war spending, increasing the risk of sudden revolutions everywhere."
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (21) Mar 05, 2011
4. Global population explosion vs resources, jobs, better lifestyles

As the world population explodes from 7 billion to 10 billion in the next generation, the demand for more jobs and the pressure on scarce resources will increase, while expectations will fall as the ratio of haves to have-nots increases, making the world all around Wall Street a burning powder keg setting up a revolution."
http
://www.marketwatch.com/story/four-time-bombs-that-will-blow-up-wall-street-2011-03-01?pagenumber=2

Naturally I blame religions.
Cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.1 / 5 (22) Mar 05, 2011
There are many religious organizations who will support women who do not want to kill their babies.
Naturally because they want to GROW. They long ago embraced charity and empathy as they did morality and tribal law, and claimed that they were the only source of it. Which is a lie.
Since your an atheist, you completely disregard the possibility that people will care for each other and default to statist solutions which leads down the path to tyranny.
Naturally because you are a religionist and you believe only the godly can care about the welfare of others. But ANYBODY will eventually turn against their neighbor as your religions force pops to grow without limit.

God does NOT provide. Never did and never will.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2011
But ANYBODY will eventually turn against their neighbor

Why?
The only limits to growth are human caused so it can't be due to lack of resources. It must be due to some people's desire to control those who do not want to be controlled.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 05, 2011
Since your an atheist, you completely disregard the possibility that people will care for each other and default to statist solutions which leads down the path to tyranny.
Allow me to rephrase your statement.

You think that because I don't ascribe my morality to an invisible creator being, that I must automatically be ill intentioned. Yet you're the dipshit who won't let anything ever happen to a fetus, but once it's born it can starve to death because you don't give a shit about the living.

As a theist, you need your morality fed to you, with an eternal threat of terror and torture should you ever deviate, while as an atheist, I don't need reward nor punishment to act civil to my fellow person.

Further, your priorities are spears and swords, while mine are health and well being.

So who's the real tyrant in this equation?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2011
while mine are health and well being.

Your methods to achieve 'health and well being' require the use of the spears and swords of state power to coerce wealth from those with ability to 'giv'e to those in need.
The govt gets to decide who has 'the ability' and 'those in need' and it is done to expand the power of the govt.
Last time I was in church I saw no spears and swords.

Billionaire socialists like Sen. Kerry, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, etc. advocate and campaign for higher taxes for all. Of course they don't practice what they preach as there are no laws prohibiting them from donating their fortunes to the govt. Please let men know when any socialist has the courage of their convictions and donates all their wealth to the govt.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2011
Your methods to achieve 'health and well being' require the use of the spears and swords of state power to coerce wealth from those with ability to 'giv'e to those in need.
No, it doesn't. It requires people with ethics, which as proved by your activities, is not a universal.
Of course they don't practice what they preach as there are no laws prohibiting them from donating their fortunes to the govt.
They don't do that because morons like you would spend it on guns and bombs to subdue the citizens with. Again, it all goes back to your lack of ethics.
Last time I was in church I saw no spears and swords.
The iconography of the church is of weaponry and avarice. If you don't see it, it's because you're not looking.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2011
It requires people with ethics,


"The Superman Idea
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?
Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? The organizers {socialists} maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are
so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let them show their titles to this superiority."
Bastiat, The Law.

How ethical is it to gang up and use force to take an individual's life, liberty and property?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2011
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good?
Bastiat was an extremist hardened by decades of war. Then again, if you weren't reinventing history every day you'd probably know that.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2011
Since your an atheist, you completely disregard the possibility that people will care for each other and default to statist solutions which leads down the path to tyranny.

Just to rewind a bit, let us think of psalm 23. The Lord is your sheppard. Well only food animals need to be led around, or as we do today, penned up in a cage until it's ripe to be culled.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2011
Bastiat was an extremist hardened by decades of war.

So?
His observations still apply.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.5 / 5 (19) Mar 05, 2011
But ANYBODY will eventually turn against their neighbor

Why?
The only limits to growth are human caused so it can't be due to lack of resources. It must be due to some people's desire to control those who do not want to be controlled.
The natural limit to growth is starvation. Religions convince the people to reproduce past the limit of stability and promise that if god does not provide, he will as soon as the heathens are destroyed.

People will not let their children starve without a fight. Society collapses, tribalism emerges, conflict ensues. Right now your religionist brethren are revolting for these exact reasons. This has always been the case. Let me repeat: this has ALWAYS been the case.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2011
Starvation today is the result of govt interference in economies. A human cause.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 05, 2011
Bastiat was an extremist hardened by decades of war.
So? His observations still apply.
But must be viewed in context. This is a practice that you repeatedly fail at.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 05, 2011
But must be viewed in context. This is a practice that you repeatedly fail at.

That's the problem with 'sophistication'.
Neville Chamberlain probably thought himself 'sophisticated' and there would be 'peace in our time.
But reality is quite unsophisticated. Government is force. People still want to control others using that force. SH is one example among many others here.
SH threatens and lies in attempts to stifle me. I am an 'other interest' of his.
Stories in the Bible, Aesop's fables, Greek tragedies and comedies, Batiat's The Law continue to be relevant because people have not really changed that much.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 05, 2011
Government is force.
Yes.
People still want to control others using that force.
Without government people not only want to control others - they do control others. J.B.H. Lacordaire:
Between the strong and the week,
between the wealthy and the poor
it is liberty which suppresses
and it is the law which yields freedom.
dumdogslickthemselves
3 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2011
Starvation today is the result of govt interference in economies. A human cause.
Economies are incapable of dealing with the explosive pop growth which is resulting in massive starvation. This is not the govts fault unless the govt is exploiting it to reduce it's pops, as was the case in darfur.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 05, 2011
But must be viewed in context. This is a practice that you repeatedly fail at.
That's the problem with 'sophistication'.
No, that's the problem you have with sophistication. Since you're a simple lout you have a fantastic inability to understand what you are reading.
SH threatens and lies in attempts to stifle me. I am an 'other interest' of his.
No I prefer you talk as loud and as long as you want so that other people can see how full of hate you are, and how that hate is born of your ignorance and inability to grasp even the most straightforward of causal relationships. If I was to silence you, I would lose the most significant tool in my arsenal to show people the ignorance of your views.
People still want to control others using that force. SH is one example among many others here.
As I said above, I have no need to control you, nor would I care to. I'd rather let you run your mouth and place yourself in an ideological corner.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2011
Starvation today is the result of govt interference in economies. A human cause.
Economies are incapable of dealing with the explosive pop growth which is resulting in massive starvation. This is not the govts fault unless the govt is exploiting it to reduce it's pops, as was the case in darfur.

Of course it is the fault of the govt. Zimbabwe is a great example. The govt destroyed their farms for politics.
The USSR had to allow their farmers to plant their own food and sell it to increase their food supplies. Cuba is now allowing their people to have their own gardens and sell the excess.
The US subsidizes sugar. Japan restricts rice imports. Most govts around the world subsidize or restrict food imports. New Zealand is one of the first countries to end ag subsidies.
Socialists can't admit the fault of food shortages are their policies because they want to use any shortages to increase their control of economies.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2011
Govts also restrict on food production by restricting the imports of mechanization. Most rice in Asia is produced by hand as farm equipment imports are restricted.

Socialist economies ARE incapable of dealing the population growth.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2011
Government is force.
Yes.
People still want to control others using that force.
Without government people not only want to control others - they do control others. J.B.H. Lacordaire:
Between the strong and the week,
between the wealthy and the poor
it is liberty which suppresses
and it is the law which yields freedom.

Depends upon The Law.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 05, 2011
As I said above, I have no need to control you, nor would I care to.

You have lied in the past. Why should anyone believe you?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 06, 2011
As I said above, I have no need to control you, nor would I care to.

You have lied in the past. Why should anyone believe you?

Because, as I said, your own idiotic commentary is the greatest tool anyone could ever have to fight off your ideological framework. If you really wanted to weaken my ability to shoot down all of your arguments, you'd just stop making them of your own accord.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2011

Bastiat was an extremist hardened by decades of war. Then again, if you weren't reinventing history every day you'd probably know that.

'Hardened'? What does that mean?
Extreme? What he observed 150+ years ago applies today.

"Bastiat was, in fact, advancing the same argument that George Osborne and his colleagues are putting forward the best part of two centuries later:that public spending is a substitute for private spending, which adds nothing to overall levels of employment, and can have the perverse effect of directing people into occupations and enterprises for which there is political, rather than popular, demand. "
http://www.indepe...104.html
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2011
'Hardened'? What does that mean?
Obfuscation from the moron, what else should I have expected.
Extreme? What he observed 150+ years ago applies today.
People still stone each other to death, that is also extreme.
Bastiat was, in fact, advancing the same argument that George Osborne and his colleagues are putting forward the best part of two centuries later
Because Osborne is also an extremist, just like yourself. He's also a member of the Ascendency, why wouldn't old world monarchs want to return to serfdom?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2011
Of course it is the fault of the govt. Zimbabwe is a great example. The govt destroyed their farms for politics.
The USSR had to allow their farmers to plant their own food and sell it to increase their food supplies. Cuba is now allowing their people to have their own gardens and sell the excess.
The US subsidizes sugar. Japan restricts rice imports. Most govts around the world subsidize or restrict food imports. New Zealand is one of the first countries to end ag subsidies.
These can all be viewed as complex efforts to modulate pop growth. They are indeed political in that unhappy constituents will invariably blame whatever govt is in charge for their ills. You will note what unfettered pop growth is doing to the leadership throughout the middle east, no matter what the form.

Most of those govts have long since become harsh and brutal to deal with the increasing unrest CAUSED by exploding pops and the resultant hardships.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 06, 2011
Socialists ... their control of economies.
Food shortages in nature are the result of a species' propensity to produce more of itself than can be expected to survive to maturity. There are no 'socialists' in the natural world (yah I know ants and herd animals etc etc bla bla).

Humans have eliminated most all attritive elements which would tend to keep their numbers in check. Without the cultural means to reduce growth, humans inevitably face famine, plague, and conflict because of this relentless equation.

The potential for growth is indeed hard to grasp. A pop with adequate resources can double within a gen, by which time these resources may well be wholly inadequate to sustain them. This alone can explain the current middle eastern unrest.

No govt can survive this sort of explosion, save for a napoleonic one which is willing to destroy much of it, or one which can somehow hang on until it destroys itself. There are no other options.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2011

I reviewed Bastiat's biography and I don't know what 'hardened by war' means and SH can't explain his assertion. Instead, he reverts to norm and calls people names.
People who do that typically can not answer and lash out at the one asking the question.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2011
Hey Otto, how many species can grow food in a desert?
All human food problems are the result of socialist govt interference in the economy.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 07, 2011
I don't know what 'hardened by war' means and SH can't explain his assertion.
Because you're a moron.
Instead, he reverts to norm and calls people names.
If you cannot grasp the meaning of a turn of phrase that you yourself have used on these forums, you are a moron. It isn't name calling, it is attribute description.
People who do that typically can not answer and lash out at the one asking the question.
Ah you mean like when you go on your 4 post tears, reposting blog articles for hours because someone asked you to explain your version of what you were saying.

Your insults are the only thing more descriptive of your lack of intellect, than your actions.
frajo
5 / 5 (1) Mar 07, 2011
All human food problems are the result of socialist govt interference in the economy.

"In the Global South, the predatory nature of the neoliberal boom has been even more dramatic. McNally shows how the U.S., through the IMF, imposed structural adjustment policies on indebted countries, privatizing state industry, gutting the welfare state and opening them up to multinational capital. Neoliberal agricultural policies opened countries to imperialist agribusiness, whose subsidized products undercut local agriculture, driving peasants off the land to become a source of cheap labor in their own countries, or abroad as migrant workers, where they suffer from xenophobia and racial oppression."
socialistworker.org/2011/03/07/
capitalisms-global-slump
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2011
I don't know what 'hardened by war' means and SH can't explain his assertion.
Because you're a moron.
Instead, he reverts to norm and calls people names.
If you cannot grasp the meaning of a turn of phrase that you yourself have used on these forums, you are a moron. It isn't name calling, it is attribute description.
People who do that typically can not answer and lash out at the one asking the question.
Ah you mean like when you go on your 4 post tears, reposting blog articles for hours because someone asked you to explain your version of what you were saying.

Your insults are the only thing more descriptive of your lack of intellect, than your actions.

So, SH was lying, once again, about Bastiat.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2011
"The GOVERNMENTS of the world spent trillions of dollars to bail out banks and corporations, essentially transferring their bad debts and losses onto government ledgers. "
http://socialistw...al-slump

Wow, what a twisted article!
"Deregulation of financial markets in the 1980s and '90s was a matter of government policy catching up to reality, rather than policy causing the speculation."
What deregulation?
"lean production techniques that lowered the cost of plant and machinery" Being efficient is a bad thing to socialists.
"more powerful countries battered their way into markets in the less developed world." And they are still government controlled markets.
Even the socialists acknowledge the problem is govt control of markets. Hayek points out quite clearly that NAZIs and communists recruited from each other as they were both socialists.
The socialists confirm my thesis, govt causes the problems.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 07, 2011
Hey Otto, how many species can grow food in a desert?
All human food problems are the result of socialist govt interference in the economy.
Hey ryggemuggle I'm going to have to assume you're referring to all those poor starving souls living in subsaharan Africa? The question is, why would they choose to live there or remain there if they could relocate?

One answer is that they were forced into those regions by population pressure. They had nowhere else to go. Another reason is that constant overuse and abuse of those areas has turned them into desert. People strip the landscape in order to survive.

One can see this desertification throughout equatorial africa and Asia. The Sahel is moving south, the Syrian desert expands, Afghanistan is barren, the balkans have no trees, the gobi grows; etc.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 07, 2011
Actually i see you were pointing out human resourcefulness but it offered a good opportunity to make the points I did. How many species can CREATE deserts? I can think of only one.

Irrigation of marginal lands eventually saltifies them and renders them worthless. Nebucchadnezzar knew this and tried to fix the Euphrates valley by carting off the top few feet of it. He gave up. people were irrevocably ruining the world even back then because of their propensity to reproduce themselves to the point of starvation.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2011
They had nowhere else to go.

Why not?
Why don't they have an economy that creates wealth?
constant overuse and abuse of those areas

Sounds like a 'tragedy of the commons' which results from no private property rights.

The Saudis are growing wheat in the desert.
Israel turned their desert into a productive asset.

Hong Kong and Singapore have no desert and no land to even raise food. How do they survive?

How many species can CREATE deserts?

Mastodons were thought to have overgrazed.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 07, 2011
Sounds like a 'tragedy of the commons' which results from no private property rights.
Rights are directly related in a very real way to population pressure. As pressure grows rights begin to evaporate. Ask Mubarak and quaddaffy.

The Saudis are growing wheat in the desert.
Israel turned their desert into a productive asset.
At what cost? For how long? How many can they feed doing that?

Technology can and will do amazing things. But it has never been able to provide for all the lives it has enabled. Ancient religionist cultures (like the one in your head) still persist and are thriving on technology. They need to end before they destroy the world.

Mastodons were thought to have overgrazed.
And maybe that's why they died out. Aw come on, you gave me that one didn't you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 07, 2011
Why don't they have an economy that creates wealth?
Allow me to make the point once again, that their ancient religionist cultures (like the one in your head) prevent them from joining the modern world.

More resources for people entrapped in these cultures don't mean better lives for them, they only mean MORE lives. MANY more lives. In the past these lives were expended in wars against enemies. Which is what we are observing at present in the middle east.

You want to help marjon? Give up your god. Make a statement. Show these people that superstition is not needed any more. Come on. Do it for the children. Ha.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2011
But it has never been able to provide for all the lives it has enabled

There is no shortage of food.
Why can't that food reach the hungry?
entrapped in these cultures

Who keeps people trapped in a culture?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2011
Culture kills.
"Throughout Europe, potatoes were regarded with suspicion, distaste and fear. Generally considered to be unfit for human consumption, they were used only as animal fodder and sustenance for the starving. In northern Europe, potatoes were primarily grown in botanical gardens as an exotic novelty. Even peasants refused to eat from a plant that produced ugly, misshapen tubers and that had come from a heathen civilization. "
http://www.histor...ato.html

TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 07, 2011
Even peasants refused to eat from a plant that produced ugly, misshapen tubers and that had come from a heathen civilization.
Whassamatter marjon, is otto actually convincing you of the dangers that religions pose? '...from a heathen civilization' is from your quote. Religionists would rather starve (or steal food from heathens) than eat unclean food. Italians used to feel the same way about the tomato.

And religionists would rather bear one more child even as the others are beginning to starve, because god INSISTS upon it. And he also promises to provide for them which he never does, except to identify heathens with food for the taking.

It is a curiosity that as potatos came from Peru, so did the blight which caused the famine which killed 1/3 of the irish population. Their numbers had exploded when the tuber was introduced, encouraged of course by the church. The blight caused many to emigrate to the US who could. More demographic Engineering I wonder?
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 07, 2011
entrapped in these cultures

Who keeps people trapped in a culture?
The various god worshippers would be one.

ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2011
entrapped in these cultures

Who keeps people trapped in a culture?
The various god worshippers would be one.


Like your god, the state?

"I want to argue that Western democracy
at least as we have known it turns out,
itself, to be a kind of theocracy, too."
http://www.mmisi....ague.pdf

@Otto, the shortage of food is not cause the lack of potential to grow more food. It is the fault of the culture of the state and societies.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2011
@otto:
"India has a far more stable economy and is far more prosperous than before."
"This has helped reduce immiserating poverty. Notes Rajadhyaksha: Average dollar incomes have more than tripled since 1991. Diets have improved and more proteins are being consumed. "
http://blogs.forb...-making/

All because the Indian govt began to 'liberalize' its economy.

Zimbabwe is starving because they socialized their economy.
frajo
5 / 5 (3) Mar 08, 2011
"This has helped reduce immiserating poverty. Notes Rajadhyaksha: Average dollar incomes have more than tripled since 1991.
Average IQ is 100. This doesn't imply that everybody has an average IQ. Some are left in dire need.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2011
Like your god, the state?

"I want to argue that Western democracy
at least as we have known it turns out,
itself, to be a kind of theocracy, too."
So you snipe a quote from someone who's calling out the fact that the US governments, that's including state governments, are very much infested with christian immorality codes.

You can prove anyone's point but your own, eh?
Zimbabwe is starving because they socialized their economy.
Zimbabwe is starving for a whole different reason, dolt.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2011
"This has helped reduce immiserating poverty. Notes Rajadhyaksha: Average dollar incomes have more than tripled since 1991.
Average IQ is 100. This doesn't imply that everybody has an average IQ. Some are left in dire need.

The average IQ IS 100, by definition.

Zimbabwe is starving for a whole different reason, dolt.

Before the govt kicked the white farmers off of their land, Zimbabwe exported food.

I am not surprised SH would deny his atheist statism can be considered theocracy.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2011
@Otto, the shortage of food is not cause the lack of potential to grow more food. It is the fault of the culture of the state and societies.
It is primarily caused by the ability of pops to grow faster than the food supply can. This can include lack of storage and distribution infrastructure, and the inability of economies and political systems to deal with the surge. It can also include active political measures to limit growth, as with serfdom which keeps families at a minimal subsistence level.
All because the Indian govt began to 'liberalize' its economy.
India is also undergoing a complex process of westernization. So many religion-based subcultures to destroy, so little time.
Before the govt kicked the white farmers off of their land, Zimbabwe exported food.
Before their pops EXPLODED Zimbabwe exported food. You look up the numbers.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2011
"I want to argue that Western democracy
at least as we have known it turns out,
itself, to be a kind of theocracy, too."
The main DIFFERENCE madam, between western culture and those based on fantastical sky demons, is that the west stresses the necessity of living within ones MEANS rather than expecting some godly reward for exceeding it. Theocracy is based on FANTASY. The west is firmly rooted in REALITY.

Don't worry, I'm sure the budget deficit will evaporate sometime. Clinton made one go away didn't he? >P
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2011
"Since Zimbabwe's farm invasions began in February 2000, the country has lost its status as the region's breadbasket. From a net exporter of food, it now imports to feed its increasingly impoverished millions.

Meanwhile tobacco, the commodity that once drove the country's economy, has slumped to a meager output of about 60 million kilograms, down from more than 230 million five years ago.

Once the world's number two producer of high grade Virginia leaf, Zimbabwe no longer produces a crop of either quality or weight. ZANU PF's self-styled war veterans have forced some 1,400 large scale tobacco growers off their farms. Scores of farmers and their families stood helplessly by while angry mobs destroyed homes and pillaged equipment.

As many as a million farm workers and their families may have been made homeless in a process that saw thousands tortured, beaten and raped while workers' houses were burned to the ground by angry mobs of ZANU PF supporters."
http://newfarm.ro...titute.o
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2011
Yes. Clear away all the hype, spin, and propaganda and what is the evidence we can glean from this snippet? 'impoverished millions'. Have tobacco crops been replaced by food crops? Why do these war veterans have nothing else to do than fight for someone elses property? What is the SOURCE of conflict marjon? Too many PEOPLE and not enough resources to share. A million homeless farm workers and their families. Are the farms still being worked?

Tribal, ethnic, religious divisions are exacerbated in time of need, and people are quick to blame these as the source of conflict. But it is the relative SIZE of the populus relative to the amount of resources needed to sustain them, which is always the ultimate source of conflict.

And, too, there are Those who have learned to anticipate this imbalance, and seek to act strategically, before situations become unmanageable. Which is only prudent.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (4) Mar 08, 2011
I am not surprised SH would deny his atheist statism can be considered theocracy.
I'm not surprised you would expect government to enforce something as ridiculous as "moral turpitude" Ms. Bahlbriker.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2011
They were impoverished because the socialist government destroyed the capital equipment and assets that raised tobacco as a cash crop and maize for food.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2011
Sometimes it is necessary to set backfires in order to stop a conflagration, and to do controlled burns to prevent them. Someone uninformed who stumbled onto this Process might recoil at fires being set in forests, not knowing that this was being done to prevent the loss of the entire forest. They might think the rangers were heartless lunatics.

Some people who post here would rather see an entire forest burn. Rangers would tell them that that is exactly what they will see. Ideals can and do lead to total destruction.

But such is the way of forest Management in the absence of natural checks and balances that nature used to provide, and which forests evolved to expect. Rangers know that in order to Preserve it is sometimes necessary to Destroy.

'Mine eyes burn reflecting
The Forest in Flames.'
Gorgoroth
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2011
Sometimes it is necessary to set backfires in order to stop a conflagration, and to do controlled burns to prevent them. Someone uninformed who stumbled onto this Process might recoil at fires being set in forests, not knowing that this was being done to prevent losing the entire forest. They might think the rangers were heartless lunatics.

But such is the way of forest Management in the absence of natural checks and balances that nature used to provide, and which forests evolved to expect. Rangers know that in order to Preserve it is sometimes necessary to Destroy.

Capitalists understand creative destruction. That activity leads to growth and prosperity. Socialist destruction leads to poverty and contraction.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.3 / 5 (16) Mar 08, 2011
Capitalists understand creative destruction. That activity leads to growth and prosperity. Socialist destruction leads to poverty and contraction.
Indeed, the capitalists who planned the US civil war knew all about creative destruction.

And sometimes poverty and contraction is the preferred way of destroying obsolete economies and cultures.
ryggesogn2
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 08, 2011
Who planned the US Civil War?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2011
They were impoverished because the socialist government destroyed the capital equipment and assets that raised tobacco as a cash crop and maize for food.
No, they were impoverished before that. The Mugabe regime seized the assets of those who weren't poor, creating more poor, but also destroying the infrastructure due to a lack of a police force to prevent the destruction. In short, the Anarchy and lawlessness, something that you support, of the Mugabe regime destroyed the production capability of the country.
Who planned the US Civil War?

That's be the State's Rights based south.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2011
Anarchy and lawlessness, something that you support, of the Mugabe regime

Anarchy is absence of government. How can this exist under the Mugabe regime, aka a GOVERNMENT?
The socialist govt of Mugabe failed and continues to fail.

The only way anyone can survive in Zimbabwe today is accomplished in spite of the govt.

"As desperation meets opportunity, Zimbabwe's black market thrives:
The economy began its free fall when landless black peasants invaded white-owned farms in 2000 with the support of Mugabe, who said the redistribution would undo colonial inequities. "
http://www.boston...thrives/
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 08, 2011
"If state predation is severe enough, government can do more harm than good. In
such cases anarchy produces a higher level of development than predatory
political governance."
"both historically and today,
individuals manage to exchange and maintain cooperative relations on a large
scale without state involvement.15 Where government doesnt exist to define or
enforce property rights, or to provide public goods, private actors protect property
rights and provide public goods instead."
http://www.peterl...ment.pdf
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2011
both historically and today,
individuals manage to exchange and maintain cooperative relations on a large
scale without state involvement
For the most part, today it's called drug trafficing, arms trafficing, etc. THe government doesn't oversee those transactions, but there are certainly laws and enforcers that govern those markets.
If state predation is severe enough, government can do more harm than good.
Yes, like when a governor decides to interfere with collective bargaining rights.
Anarchy is absence of government. How can this exist under the Mugabe regime, aka a GOVERNMENT?
Laws that are not enforced do not exist in practice.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2011
Who planned the US Civil War?
The masters of slavery.
frajo
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2011
Anarchy is absence of government.
That's wrong. The Greek word for "government" is "kyvernisi".
Anarchy is absence of rules, absence of dominance.
Gun lovers cannot be anarchists. Pacifists may.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 08, 2011
Laws that are not enforced do not exist in practice.

Like US immigration 'laws'.
The masters of slavery.

But they LOST the war and, as the Christians of England did, slavery would have been eliminated in the US even if the CSA had been allowed to secede.

"Greek, anarchía lawlessness, literally, lack of a leader, equivalent to ánarch ( os ) leaderless "
It does NOT mean absence of rules. I means absence of a leader. Societies exist with rules and without leaders.

Gun lovers cannot be anarchists.

Why not? I suggest those libertarians who support a leaderless society would have firearms for self defense.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 08, 2011
But they LOST the war and, as the Christians of England did, slavery would have been eliminated in the US even if the CSA had been allowed to secede.
Yes, because the CSA, as well as any other slave holders, would have left the US.
Societies exist with rules and without leaders.
Yes, it's called socialism. So let's pull the next line from your source, which as usual is wikipedia:
Most often, the term "anarchy" describes the simple absence of publicly recognized government or enforced political authority. When used in this sense, anarchy may or may not imply political disorder or lawlessness within a society. In another sense, anarchy may not refer to a complete lack of authority or political organization, but instead refer to a social state characterized by absolute direct democracy or libertarianism.
Hmm, aren't you a libertarian? But you conversely hold that direct democracy is a bad choice. After all you always complain about the tyranny of the majority
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2011
Who planned the US Civil War?
The masters of slavery.
No, it was a quick and effective way of ending the obsolete slave-based economic system in the south, in accordance with the Industrial Revolution. Youll recall that turmoil of various types and degrees was occuring worldwide. The german craftsmen had their little spat. The crimean war hardened russias military. The great land grab was occuring in africa, to secure resources for industry and the coming megawars it would produce.

As usual, these wars provide a number of benefits. The US civil war produced a world-class navy which would shortly take its place in world conflicts. Southern railroads were destroyed, enabling them to be rebuilt to northern standards. A battle-hardened cavalry was produced which was essential in defeating the plains indians and securing the southern border. Cotton production was decentralized. Etc. A very productive war indeed.
cont
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 08, 2011
But perhaps the greatest effect of the civil war, which many admit was a benefit, was the reduction of labor pools north and south which gave slaves something to do and somewhere to go after they were freed.

The pop of the south was 1/3 slave. Having no work to sustain them, many would have settled in southern cities, rapidly shifting the southern demographic as whites left these areas. A new culture would have quickly arisen with its own language and identity. The country would have been faced with a real war of secession within a few gens had not the opportunity been provided for these new citizens to find work in the north and west.

This Process of dispersion was facilitated by Agencies such as the KKK, which would appear whenever their new communities grew too large or powerful.

The whole Campaign took over 100 years. Once dispersed their reproduction was subsidized (welfare) until demographic targets were achieved. Finally a civil rights movement gave them equal status.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 09, 2011
Hmm, aren't you a libertarian? But you conversely hold that direct democracy is a bad choice. After all you always complain about the tyranny of the majority
Ryggesogn2/marjon is not an anarchist and not a libertarian.
He is a "Social Darwinist". One who promotes the rule of force: The needy shall perish, the strong must rule.
This ideology has a lot to do with Nazism. The Nazis killed millions of people they defined to be subhuman in order to promote what they called their master race.

Ryggesogn2 has more than once implicitly stated that the needs of the weak people should be a matter of the mercy of the wealthy people ("property owners" in his lingo). This is moderated language to hide his Nazi-like intentions.

It's of no concern what he pretends or really thinks to be. It's of concern what he's preaching.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2011
"India has a far more stable economy and is far more prosperous than before."
"This has helped reduce immiserating poverty. Notes Rajadhyaksha: Average dollar incomes have more than tripled since 1991. Diets have improved and more proteins are being consumed."
http://blogs.forbes.com..
"Economic growth in India has no automatic connection to reducing undernutrition in Indian children and so further reductions in the prevalence of childhood undernutrition are likely to depend on direct investments in health and health-related programs. These are the conclusions of a large study by researchers at the Schools of Public Health at University of Michigan and Harvard University, that is published in this week's PLoS Medicine."
physorg.com/news/
2011-03-link-economic-growth-child-undernutrition.html
(Dedicated especially to those who confuse statistical distribution and statistical average in order to promote their antisocial aims.)
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2011
He is a "Social Darwinist".
Everyone by default is a social darwinist. In free speech societies, the goal is to have all ideas vetted to the public and allow the people to decide which ideas are socially unhealthy so they can be selected against and perish. I think you are misusing the term.
One who promotes the rule of force: The needy shall perish, the strong must rule.
This ideology has a lot to do with Nazism. The Nazis killed millions of people they defined to be subhuman in order to promote what they called their master race.
I don't disagree that the NAZIs were of this stripe, and I don't doubt that with the environment involved Mr. Swenson wouldn't also be of it as well.

I'd use the term xenophobe, but that doesn't necessarily seem to be accurate enough. Conformist comes to mind, as does randian objectivist.

I think I'll just call him douchebag. That's a fitting moniker in all cases of his activity.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2011
NAZIs were/are socialists, statists, just as are frajo and SH are statist/socialists.

They have not met a govt program they did not like.

And, like typical 'liberals', instead of defending their indefensible statist/socialist positions, they insult.

frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 09, 2011
He is a "Social Darwinist".
Everyone by default is a social darwinist. In free speech societies, the goal is to have all ideas vetted to the public and allow the people to decide which ideas are socially unhealthy so they can be selected against and perish. I think you are misusing the term.
My understanding is outlined in the corresponding Wikipedia entry:
Social Darwinism is a term used for various late nineteenth century ideologies which, while often contradictory, exploited ideas of survival of the fittest. It especially refers to notions of struggle for existence being used to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. The most prominent form of such views stressed competition between individuals in laissez-faire capitalism but it is also connected to the ideas of the progressive era, in which many promoted eugenics or scientific racism or imperialism
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 09, 2011
the progressive era, in which many promoted eugenics or scientific racism or imperialism

These are socialists.

This is capitalism:
"Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. Under capitalism the state is separated from economics (production and trade), just like the state is separated from religion. Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom. "
"billionaire George Soros is not a capitalist as he does not advocate capitalism, but he advocates some form of a mixed economy statism. Soros like Ted Turner is a "socialist at heart.""
http://capitalism...lism.htm

Why do socialists have so much difficulty is supporting and promoting INDIVIDUAL rights as those rights apply to them as well? Socialists want MORE 'rights' than the unwashed masses?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2011
Why do socialists have so much difficulty is supporting and promoting INDIVIDUAL rights as those rights apply to them as well? Socialists want MORE 'rights' than the unwashed masses?
This phrase effectively defeats itself.

You should re-read for clarity before you post.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2011
"The organizers maintain that society, when left undirected, rushes headlong to its inevitable destruction because the instincts of the people are so perverse. The legislators claim to stop this suicidal course and to give it a saner direction. Apparently, then, the legislators and the organizers have received from Heaven an intelligence and
virtue that place them beyond and above mankind; if so, let
them show their titles to this superiority.
They would be the shepherds over us, their sheep. Certainly
such an arrangement presupposes that they are naturally
superior to the rest of us."
Bastiat, The Law.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 09, 2011
Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

"Between the strong and the weak,
between the wealthy and the poor
it is freedom that leads to suppression
and it's the law that makes free."
[J.B.H. Lacordaire]
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2011
Govt unions and govt employees certainly have more 'rights' to the wealth of taxpayers than private sector 'slaves'.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2011
Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

"Between the strong and the weak,
between the wealthy and the poor
it is freedom that leads to suppression
and it's the law that makes free."
[J.B.H. Lacordaire]

What law?
This law: "when the law, by means of its necessary agent, force, imposes upon men a regulation of labor, a method or a subject of education, a religious faith or creedthen the law is no longer negative; it acts positively upon people. It substitutes the will of the legislator for their own wills"
Or this law:
"When law and force keep a person within the bounds of
justice, they impose nothing but a mere negation. They oblige
him only to abstain from harming others. They violate neither
his personality, his liberty, nor his property. They safeguard all of these. They are defensive; they defend equally the rights of all."
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2011
"liberalism will be vanquished by an oppressive democracy or by unbridled autocracy, and this is why the union of liberty and Christianity is the sole possible salvation of the future. Christianity alone can give liberty its real nature, and liberty alone can give Christianity the means of influence necessary to it. Thus, the state must also cease its control of education, the press, and labor in order to allow Christianity to effectively flourish in those arenas. "
Jean-Baptiste-Henri Dominique Lacordaire
http://www.acton....cordaire
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Mar 09, 2011
liberalism will be vanquished by an oppressive democracy or by unbridled autocracy, and this is why the union of liberty and Christianity is the sole possible salvation of the future.
Completely ignorant of history.
Christianity alone can give liberty its real nature
Liberty is homophobic, sexist, and self hating?

I think you need a serious wake-up call.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 09, 2011
liberalism will be vanquished by an oppressive democracy or by unbridled autocracy, and this is why the union of liberty and Christianity is the sole possible salvation of the future.
Completely ignorant of history.
Christianity alone can give liberty its real nature
Liberty is homophobic, sexist, and self hating?

I think you need a serious wake-up call.


That was frajo source.

SH once again demonstrates his intolerance of Christians. Not very 'liberal' of you.

But SH does support socialism which has murdered millions in the past 100+ years. He even defends Pol Pot.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2011
Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

"Between the strong and the weak,
between the wealthy and the poor
it is freedom that leads to suppression
and it's the law that makes free."
[J.B.H. Lacordaire]

What law?
The law that protects the weak against the strong and the poor against the wealthy.
The law that provides the protection you want to abolish.
The law that is welcomed by majorities in every existing society.

And no, you are not an anarchist. Proudhon, who "is considered among the most influential theorists and organisers of anarchism" (Wikipedia) coined the adage "Property is theft".
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 10, 2011
"liberalism will be vanquished by an oppressive democracy or by unbridled autocracy, and this is why the union of liberty and Christianity is the sole possible salvation of the future.
...
Jean-Baptiste-Henri Dominique Lacordaire
What do you want to convey with this quote?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 10, 2011
That was frajo source.
No, that was the source for YOUR selected quotation. The fact that the two of you chose disparate quotes from the same author is of no concern.
SH once again demonstrates his intolerance of Christians. Not very 'liberal' of you.
What intolerance have I displayed?
But SH does support socialism which has murdered millions in the past 100+ years.
Far fewer than most other ideologies have. Beyond that you further obfuscate the issue due to your inability to understand simple definitions.
He even defends Pol Pot.
Not once have I done so. I have spoken with you on the topic of Pol Pot to correct your absolutely nonsensical revision of history that you attempt to pass off as fact.

Again, you are a liar.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (15) Mar 10, 2011
This ideology has a lot to do with Nazism.
So does your particular brand of censorship. Nazis and bolsheviks alike killed millions only because their opinions differed from the official party lines. [Insert here the appropriate greek phrase for 'examine yourself for latent nazism first']

Any ideology will lead to murder when people with power get tired of arguing about it.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2011
Capitalism is the system of of laissez faire. It is the system of political freedom.

"Between the strong and the weak,
between the wealthy and the poor
it is freedom that leads to suppression
and it's the law that makes free."
[J.B.H. Lacordaire]

What law?
The law that protects the weak against the strong and the poor against the wealthy.
The law that provides the protection you want to abolish.
The law that is welcomed by majorities in every existing society.

And no, you are not an anarchist. Proudhon, who "is considered among the most influential theorists and organisers of anarchism" (Wikipedia) coined the adage "Property is theft".

Frajo wants positive law that can can confiscate people's property, including the people themselves, to benefit the state. Sounds just like what the NAZIs and Soviets did.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2011
Frajo wants positive law that can can confiscate people's property, including the people themselves, to benefit the state.
So does this mean that you want positive laws that confiscate public worker retirement benefits to benefit the state budget?
Sounds just like what the NAZIs and Soviets did.
In the real world or in your revisionist nonsense Swensonland world?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2011
Just for the record, her's a short blurb on fascism.
Fascists oppose liberalism (as a bourgeois movement) and Marxism (as a proletarian movement) for being exclusive economic class-based movements. Fascists present their ideology as that of an economically trans-class movement that promotes ending economic class conflict to secure national solidarity.
Sources: Walter Laqueur, Walter. Fascism: A Readers' Guide : Analysis, Interpretations, Bibliography
and Griffin, Roger. The Nature of Fascism.

So Mr. Swenson, who's ideology above most congruently conforms to this scholarly definition?

Ah yes, yours.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2011
Fascist and communists are socialists just as Hayek and many others have noted. Even the creator of Fascism, Mussolini stated quite clearly it is a national socialist movement.

Like SH, Fascists/socialists/communists are opposed to classical liberalism.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2011
Like SH, Fascists/socialists/communists are opposed to classical liberalism.
No, they're opposed to liberalism, you are a libertarian, which is rather far from classical liberalism as well as contemporary liberalism.

Fascists used to toss around the words socialist and liberal as an insult quite often.

That fits your MO to a tee.
frajo
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2011
Fascist and communists are socialists just as Hayek and many others have noted. Even the creator of Fascism, Mussolini stated quite clearly it is a national socialist movement.
It is remarkable that you adopt the "socialism" definitions of reactionaries and fascists while avoiding any mentioning of the definitions of true socialists like Rosa Luxemburg.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2011
Fascists used to toss around the words socialist and liberal as an insult quite often.

Fascists used to recruit socialists and the Soviets recruited socialists and fascists.
But neither were very successful at recruiting the classical liberal that supported limited government and personal property rights.
Socialism is quite well defined as a govt that controls and limits private property rights.
You socialists quibble on style: fascism, communism, corporatism, etc. but for the traditional, classical liberal as referred to by Hayek, Bastiat, de Tocquville, Jefferson, etc., ALL your govts, (and you all) want is to actively control the individual and his property and make it subservient to the state.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2011
But neither were very successful at recruiting the classical liberal that supported limited government and personal property rights.
The "classical liberal" isn't who you think it is. Adam Smith was a classical liberal. Your often quoted Hayek, and his associate Friedman were neo-classical liberals. Neo-classical liberals were characterized by ideology which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom. In its most extreme form, it advocated Social Darwinism. Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.

Again, you parade your ignorance for those of us who actually know something of the topic to laugh at.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 10, 2011
Neo-classical liberals were characterized by ideology which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom.


What is the difference?

"In the 18th and 19th centuries, the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit."

http://mises.org/...ical.asp
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 10, 2011
the term liberalism generally meant a philosophy of public life that affirmed the following principle: societies and all their component parts need no central management and control because societies generally manage themselves through the voluntary interaction of its members to their mutual benefit.
That's technically socialism/communism. Try again.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2011
That's technically socialism/communism. Try again.

The key difference is the ownership of property. Socialists don't respect individual property rights. Classical liberals insist upon private property rights as the basis of their 'voluntary interaction' for their 'mutual benefit'.

"Rather than insisting that the freedom to obtain and employ private property is simply one aspect of people's liberty, this second argument insists that private property is the only effective means for the protection of liberty. Here the idea is that the dispersion of power that results from a free market economy based on private property protects the liberty of subjects against encroachments by the state. "

"classical liberals reject the redistribution of wealth as a legitimate aim of government."
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 11, 2011
"classical liberals reject the redistribution of wealth as a legitimate aim of government."
You cannot hide your antisocial, antidemocratic, and plutocratic intentions by using deceptive vocabulary.
You don't reject government - you reject only governments which don't execute the intentions of the wealthy.
You don't reject redistribution - you reject only redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.

There's no ethical entitlement for any subset of society other than a majority to decide about the distribution of the deceased individuals' wealth.
The wealthy may enjoy their wealth, but they must not decide societal affairs as they are societal accidents.

In your fight against the majorities of history you remind one of Don Quixote's fight against the windmills.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2011
The key difference is the ownership of property. Socialists don't respect individual property rights. Classical liberals insist upon private property rights as the basis of their 'voluntary interaction' for their 'mutual benefit'.
So you're saying that liberalism requires a need for the abstract concept of private ownership in order to share the benefit of the 'property'.

That doesn't sound utterly ridiculous to you?

If there's a swing set on the grounds of a public school (communally owned) then everyone can use it and receive a benefit from its use. If it is a privately owned swing set, there is no net change in the potential of the item, but there is now an artificial stop gate invoked in order to allow the owner to selfishly collect a profit, thus allowing the ability to remove public benefit.

You are establishing greed as a motive for liberty and freedom. That's ridiculously idiotic.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 11, 2011
You don't reject redistribution - you reject only redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.

Who has the wealth for the state to redistribute?
Obviously frajo and SH don't reject govt redistribution of wealth, which IS socialism.
Who defines 'wealthy'? Who defines 'poor'?

Socialists always run out of other peoples money which then makes everyone poor, except the few leaders who are a bit more equal than the rest.

SH: Would you allow all the neighbor kids into your backyard to use your pool, your swing set, even for free? If you do, you are responsible for their well being if they drown or break their leg on the your toys.
Its the same for publicly owned pools and playgrounds

Its not greed, as Adam Smith stated, it is self-interest:
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"

If you want to be responsible for the children playing your swing, you are free to do so.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2011
The city of Chelmsford requires life guards at pools owned by home owners associations that are restricted for use by the residents. That's a decision for the home owners, not the city socialists.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Mar 11, 2011
You don't reject redistribution - you reject only redistribution from the wealthy to the poor.
Who has the wealth for the state to redistribute?
Redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is the most revealing symptom of actual capitalism.
Obviously frajo and SH don't reject govt redistribution of wealth, which IS socialism.
It's revealing that you don't reject redistribution from the poor to the wealthy, which is unethical violence.
Who defines 'wealthy'? Who defines 'poor'?
Why do you ask? Don't you know what you are talking about?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2011
Redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is the most revealing symptom of actual capitalism.

What do the poor have to 'redistribute'?

frajo, who is poor? Who is wealthy? Where do you draw the line? When you set up a govt to take from the wealthy and 'give' to the poor, from whom do you take and to whom will you give? Govts need to have some laws and standards to make those decisions.
Thrasymachus
2 / 5 (8) Mar 11, 2011
There's a very thin line between self-interest and greed. Rational self-interest involves balancing your interests with the interests of others. Greed is valuing your all your own interests, no matter how petty or small, over and above the interests of others. When you have command over enough resources to meet the needs of a great many people, yet refuse to trade or grant those who need them access to your resources, you are being greedy. Free market capitalism only works in an ideal world where people are only rationally self-interested and completely informed. It is easily corrupted when people are greedy. Rather like communism.

And the source of corrupting greed in a basically capitalist economy is rarely the wealthiest of the wealthy. Rather, it's those on the next tier down, those not yet on the top and who are still competing with one another to reach those lofty heights, and usually those who have inherited their wealth.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 11, 2011
Redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is the most revealing symptom of actual capitalism.

What do the poor have to 'redistribute'?
Free time, commonly referred to as 'labor' by classical and neo-classical liberals.
frajo, who is poor? Who is wealthy? Where do you draw the line?
Living conditions.
When you set up a govt to take from the wealthy and 'give' to the poor, from whom do you take and to whom will you give?
All standards that are reasonably defined and expressed under the law, you know, that pesky thing you seem to equate with government.
Govts need to have some laws and standards to make those decisions.
And they do, you simply don't like them.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2011
Living conditions.

How do you define that?
Living conditions in a big city like Boston may be quite atrocious and expensive compared to Montana.
Do you plan to guarantee everyone a house and the funds to pay utilities and cable TV and paint and roof and...?
Many cities tried these 'projects'. Obama's aunt lives in one in Boston. Many such 'projects' were torn down because the tennents didn't own and did not value what their socialist masters did for them.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd tried to create an 'ownership' society and look at the consequences of 'free' money for housing.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 11, 2011
When you have command over enough resources to meet the needs of a great many people, yet refuse to trade or grant those who need them access to your resources, you are being greedy.

What does 'command over resources' mean?
No one has all the resources he needs to live without trading his 'resources' for something he needs.
The Saudis have lots of oil. They can't eat oil. They can't drive oil. They can't live in oil. They need to trade their oil for money. They trade money for food, cars, roads, housing, etc.
"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we can expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest"

"Yet, not a single person on the face of this earth knows how to make me (the pencil). "
http://www.econli...cl1.html
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2011
ryggesogn2, you are just a resource. "So, What does 'command over resources' mean?". It means command over you. It is obvious that mankind works much better with cooperation. I think you argue to much for non-cooperation when logically it would benefit you as well. Well never mind. Lots of people live on the back side of the bell curve.

Howhot
3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2011
What do the poor have to 'redistribute'?
you mean contribute? Don't you? Give me your answer ryggesogn2. I want your answer recorded for posterity.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2011
Living conditions.

How do you define that?
Living conditions in a big city like Boston may be quite atrocious and expensive compared to Montana.
Do you plan to guarantee everyone a house and the funds to pay utilities and cable TV and paint and roof and...?
Many cities tried these 'projects'. Obama's aunt lives in one in Boston. Many such 'projects' were torn down because the tennents didn't own and did not value what their socialist masters did for them.
Barney Frank and Chris Dodd tried to create an 'ownership' society and look at the consequences of 'free' money for housing.

We're not going to go down the definition rabbit hole with you as you'll simply ignore anything that you don't particularly like due to a prior misunderstanding of the term.

In short, go read a book on the objective definitions of these terms. Sorry, Hayek, and von Mises didn't write one. You'll have to use a different website or bookstore.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2011
I think you and your fellow socialists need to use objective definitions when you advocate for forced redistribution of wealth.
Why won't you objectively define your socialistic definitions?
Oh, that's right, you said a while back that populists like yourself don't have standards.
Science and engineering can't progress without standards.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2011
I think you and your fellow socialists need to use objective definitions when you advocate for forced redistribution of wealth.
Again making slanderous accusations. The last recourse of someone who has lost an argument on all fronts.
Why won't you objectively define your socialistic definitions?
Do I even have to point out how stupid this statement is?
Oh, that's right, you said a while back that populists like yourself don't have standards.
No, you said that and I started ifgnoring you because it was painfully obvious that you were deprived of oxygen for a long period of time during your developmental years.
Science and engineering can't progress without standards.
That's not accurate as both have in the past, however social standards are not standards of measurement. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2011
. It means command over you.

That's socialism.
you mean contribute

I didn't make this statement: "Redistribution from the poor to the wealthy is the most revealing symptom of actual capitalism. "
I asked what this meant as it is quite ridiculous.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 12, 2011
I think you and your fellow socialists need to use objective definitions when you advocate for forced redistribution of wealth.
Again making slanderous accusations. The last recourse of someone who has lost an argument on all fronts.
Why won't you objectively define your socialistic definitions?
Do I even have to point out how stupid this statement is?
Oh, that's right, you said a while back that populists like yourself don't have standards.
No, you said that and I started ifgnoring you because it was painfully obvious that you were deprived of oxygen for a long period of time during your developmental years.
Science and engineering can't progress without standards.
That's not accurate as both have in the past, however social standards are not standards of measurement. I wouldn't expect you to know the difference.

Why won't you define YOUR terms?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 12, 2011
. It means command over you.
That's socialism.
No, that's slavery.
Why won't you define YOUR terms?
I have, several times.

Remember when I said:
you'll simply ignore anything that you don't particularly like due to a prior misunderstanding of the term.
Yep, proved yet again.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 12, 2011
Me: "frajo, who is poor? Who is wealthy? Where do you draw the line? "

SH: "Living conditions."

Define 'living conditions'.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 12, 2011
Define 'living conditions'.

The means, especially financial means, whereby one lives.
ryggesogn2
2 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2011
Define 'living conditions'.

The means, especially financial means, whereby one lives.

Since you decided to answer for frajo, what defines 'poor' and 'wealthy'?
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 13, 2011
SH: "Living conditions." Define 'living conditions'.
The means, especially financial means, whereby one lives.
Since you decided to answer for frajo, what defines 'poor' and 'wealthy'?

I think you've become confused. You can't even keep what you're saying straight when you would simply need to look above to determine the track of your own thought process.

A clear sign that you're no longer engaged and merely attempting obfuscation after having no argument in the first place.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2011
A person who does not even acknowledge diverging definitions of the term "socialism" but asks others to define the terms "poor" and "wealthy" cannot be regarded as a serious participant in the discussion.

The terms "poor" and "wealthy" need not be defined as long as they are intended to convey the commonly known meanings.
But anybody whose definitions diverge has to declare his deviation.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2011
The poor in most third world countries would welcome the opportunity to be 'poor' in the USA.
The reason 'poor' needs to be defined is that socialists will use that definition to justify wealth confiscation and to create class conflicts to buy them more votes.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2011
The problem all socialists face, reality.

"He (Obama) is a man of the faculty lounge who wants a blank slate so he can remake the nation into a more perfect place, as he sees it."
"But damn it, the country and the world won't cooperate."
"His stubborn refusal to face squarely the nation's concerns has created a vacuum at home similar to the one abroad."

Read more: http://www.nypost...GVH3KiHe
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2011
The poor in most third world countries would welcome the opportunity to be 'poor' in the USA.
So what? Both are objects of exploitation by the wealthy.
The reason 'poor' needs to be defined
Why then do you use it without definition?
is that socialists will use that definition to justify wealth confiscation and to create class conflicts to buy them more votes.
The events in Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries show that reality is different from your fairy tales of evil socialists and hard working, honorable millionaires.
frajo
4 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2011
www.nypost.com/p/news/local/sayings_of_chairman_maobama_FSOKC0BqmCpXK1ozBxXlrM#ixzz1GVH3KiHe
You better read Noam Chomsky than the media censoring him.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2011
The events in Tunisia, Egypt and other Arab countries show that reality is different from your fairy tales of evil socialists and hard working, honorable millionaires.

How? The govts in these countries, before the revolution, controlled private property (socialist) and any new govt will probably do the same.
Tyranny is acceptable to some socialists if it is imposed by a majority. Tyranny, state control of individuals and their property, is still tyranny regardless of the number of tyrants.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2011
Maybe this is why frajo likes Egypt now. Attacks upon Christians are better tolerated.

"A mob of nearly four thousand Muslims has attacked Coptic homes this evening in the village of Soul, Atfif in Helwan Governorate, 30 kilometers from Cairo, and torched the Church of St. Mina and St. George."
http://ironicsurr...n-egypt/

Sharia law imposed in Tunsia and Egypt will be much more 'liberal' than the law imposed by the previous tyrants.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2011
Tyranny, state control of individuals and their property, is still tyranny regardless of the number of tyrants.
You just prefer the tyranny of the wealthy minority.
Attacks upon Christians are better tolerated.
FUD. You just want to hide your preference of "Christian" attacks.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2011
You just prefer the tyranny of the wealthy minority.

frajo, do you deny that you support redistribution of wealth by a tyrannical majority?
I suspect you and many others here do support this.
However, this is no different than what you claim to oppose.

Bottom line is you and your fellow socialists are not opposed to tyranny as long as you can be one of the tyrants.

Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY. If an individual has no right to plunder another individual, then 2 or more individuals do not have the right plunder an individual or a minority of individuals.
Howhot
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2011
ryggesogn2 asks,
do you deny that you support redistribution of wealth by a tyrannical majority

Only if the wealth is yours POS.

I think it is about time that the right wing in this country realize that if they do not give more of the profit margins back to labor, in a bottom up approach (as opposed to trickle down), the right will turn earth into a real mess really fast.

I think we are on the road to that mess already.

Look ryggesogn2, you have no rights. So leave.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2011
Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY
Is there any difference between being an "anti-socialist" and being anti-social?
Are monarchists socialists?
Is the pope socialist?
Is the government of Iran socialist?
Were Franco and Pinochet socialists?
Or are/were they all "anti-socialists", like you?
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2011
Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY
Is there any difference between being an "anti-socialist" and being anti-social?
Are monarchists socialists?
Is the pope socialist?
Is the government of Iran socialist?
Were Franco and Pinochet socialists?
Or are/were they all "anti-socialists", like you?

It depends if they respect and protect the individual's right to property.
frajo
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2011
Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY
Is there any difference between being an "anti-socialist" and being anti-social?
Are monarchists socialists?
Is the pope socialist?
Is the government of Iran socialist?
Were Franco and Pinochet socialists?
Or are/were they all "anti-socialists", like you?

It depends if they respect and protect the individual's right to property.
Whose property is Hawaii? Tibet? Jerusalem? Gibraltar? Bahrain? Australia?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2011
Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY
Is there any difference between being an "anti-socialist" and being anti-social?
Are monarchists socialists?
Is the pope socialist?
Is the government of Iran socialist?
Were Franco and Pinochet socialists?
Or are/were they all "anti-socialists", like you?

It depends if they respect and protect the individual's right to property.
Whose property is Hawaii? Tibet? Jerusalem? Gibraltar? Bahrain? Australia?
Who ever claims it, develops it and fights to keep it.
That's how sovereignty is established. East Timor is a recent example.
frajo
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2011
Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY
Is there any difference between being an "anti-socialist" and being anti-social?
Are monarchists socialists?
Is the pope socialist?
Is the government of Iran socialist?
Were Franco and Pinochet socialists?
Or are/were they all "anti-socialists", like you?

It depends if they respect and protect the individual's right to property.
Whose property is Hawaii? Tibet? Jerusalem? Gibraltar? Bahrain? Australia?
Who ever claims it, develops it and fights to keep it.
That's how sovereignty is established.
Ok - if I claim your possessions, develop them, and fight to keep them then they are my property.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2011
Anti-socialists support the inherent rights of every single individual, EQUALLY
Is there any difference between being an "anti-socialist" and being anti-social?
Are monarchists socialists?
Is the pope socialist?
Is the government of Iran socialist?
Were Franco and Pinochet socialists?
Or are/were they all "anti-socialists", like you?

It depends if they respect and protect the individual's right to property.
Whose property is Hawaii? Tibet? Jerusalem? Gibraltar? Bahrain? Australia?
Who ever claims it, develops it and fights to keep it.
That's how sovereignty is established.
Ok - if I claim your possessions, develop them, and fight to keep them then they are my property.

Claim what you will. We in the USA have the right to keep and bear arms.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2011
"All ownership derives from occupation and violence. When we consider the natural components of goods, apart from the labour components they contain, and when we follow the legal title back, we must necessarily arrive at a point where this title originated in the appropriation of goods accessible to all. "
"That all rights derive from violence, all ownership from appropriation or robbery, we may freely admit to those who oppose ownership on considerations of natural law. But this offers not the slightest proof that the abolition of ownership is necessary, advisable, or morally justified."
"All violence is aimed at the property of others."
"Thus it is no accident that it is precisely in the defence of property that Law reveals most clearly its character of peacemaker."
http://mises.org/...h.1.aspx
Skeptic_Heretic
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2011
So you're telling us it's ok for you to redistribute things as you see fit, but when we want to help people out with taxation, we're evil socialists.

Here's a great idea, how about instead of taxes, we see if the poor can just take it from you with "occupation and violence" so what was yours can become their "property".

You're a psychopath.
ryggesogn2
1.9 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2011
it's ok for you to redistribute things as you see fit,

It's ok if it's YOUR property. Donate YOUR property to anyone YOU choose.

when we want to help people out with taxation, we're evil socialists.

Depends upon your definition of 'help'.

If you mean using taxes to fund police or a military to protect everyone's rights, that a legitimate function of the state as defined in the Constitution.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
All ownership derives from occupation and violence.

It's ok if it's YOUR property.

And thus is revealed the basic paradox of your moronic economic philosophy, marjon. If all ownership is ultimately justified only by violence and brute occupation, then the government's (or anybody else's) claim on what you think you own and backing it up with the threat of violence and brute occupation is equally well justified. Whenever there's anybody bigger and badder than you, you only own anything as long as they tolerate it.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2011
All ownership derives from occupation and violence.

It's ok if it's YOUR property.

And thus is revealed the basic paradox of your moronic economic philosophy, marjon. If all ownership is ultimately justified only by violence and brute occupation, then the government's (or anybody else's) claim on what you think you own and backing it up with the threat of violence and brute occupation is equally well justified. Whenever there's anybody bigger and badder than you, you only own anything as long as they tolerate it.

That's why LAWs were instituted.
As Bastiat points out, it is the negative laws prevent injustice by limiting violence that are most effective for civil society. Positive laws supported by socialists legalize plunder, which requires state violence to redistribute wealth.
The socialist way is what you just described. The state becomes bigger and badder than the individual.
Thrasymachus
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
What's the difference between negative laws and positive laws? Sounds like a made-up distinction to me. "Negative" laws supposedly prevent injustice by limiting violence? How? The only way they work is through the threat of violence to those who violate them. And a "positive" law is no different than a law which defines permissible original acquisition. If all "positive" laws are unjust (and while you continually insist they are you have never yet proven it), then all original acquisitions are unjust, and thus the possession of any property at all is unjust.

The alternative is to ground property rights on something other than violence, but that's something conservatives never want to do. Being creatures of violence themselves, they could never respect anyone who justified themselves through anything other than violence, and so seek to create a society ruled by violence.
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2011
What's the difference between negative laws and positive laws?

Read The Law by Bastiat. I referred to it earlier.

thus the possession of any property at all is unjust.

Why? Mises described this quite well in 'Socialism'.
What's your alternative? A powerful govt that uses force to prevent ownership, including ownership of one's self? This is what socialism/communism/fascism preaches, state ownership.
Thrasymachus
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2011
Read The Law by Bastiat. I referred to it earlier.

So you don't understand it either. You must make a habit of swearing allegiance to things you don't understand. Made a fool of yourself over on the homeopathy thread doing that as well.

Why? Mises described this quite well in 'Socialism'.
What's your alternative? A powerful govt that uses force to prevent ownership, including ownership of one's self? This is what socialism/communism/fascism preaches, state ownership.

Mises admitted that all property was originally acquired through theft, then threw up his hands and said there wasn't anything anybody could do about it, and continued theft was detrimental, so was arbitrarily say "right, no more theft."

And you know very well that my alternative to basing property rights on the threat of violence is basing them instead on the mutual social obligations we have to each other by virtue of of being moral agents.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2011
This is what socialism/communism/fascism preaches, state ownership.
Socialism does not advocate state ownership. Socialism advocates public ownership. Public and State are not sysnonyms in all cases. Sorry to get into the semantics of language, but you're replying to Jon "What's a dictionary?" Swenson. Or if you prefer, Derrida Jr.

More news stories

Genetic code of the deadly tsetse fly unraveled

Mining the genome of the disease-transmitting tsetse fly, researchers have revealed the genetic adaptions that allow it to have such unique biology and transmit disease to both humans and animals.