US joining the Wendelstein 7-X fusion project

Jul 07, 2011
The outer vessel of Wendelstein 7-X equipped with a variety of ports. Blue: five auxiliary coils, which are provided by Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory. They are to help precise setting of the magnetic fields at the plasma edge. Credit: (Graphic: IPP)

The USA is investing over 7.5 million dollars in the construction of the Wendelstein 7-X fusion device at Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics in Greifswald. In the three-year project, starting in 2011, scientists from the fusion institutes at Princeton, Oak Ridge and Los Alamos are contributing auxiliary magnetic coils, measuring instruments and planning of special sections of the wall cladding for equipping the German fusion device – one of a total of nine projects in the Innovative Approaches to Fusion programme of the USA Department of Energy who will accordingly become a partner in the Wendelstein 7-X research programme.

The objective of research is to develop a power plant that, like the sun, derives energy from fusion of atomic nuclei. This requires that the fuel – an ionised low-density gas, a plasma – be confined in a magnetic field cage having virtually no contract with the vessel wall and then be heated to an ignition temperature of over 100 million degrees. The Wendelstein 7-X fusion device, now being built at Max Planck Institute of in Greifswald, will, when finished, be the world's largest and most modern device of the stellarator type. Its magnetic field makes continuous operation possible by simple means.

In the German-American cooperation programme Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory is making five auxiliary coils for Wendelstein 7-X. The window-size coils, to be installed on the outer casing of the device, are to help precise setting of the magnetic fields at the plasma edge. They ensure that the outer contour of the plasma exactly conforms to the required shape. The basic data for the components are provided by IPP, engineers and from Princeton are in charge of design – which has just undergone the final check – and manufacture of the coils. They are to be delivered at the end of 2012. The 4.3 million-dollar investment for this constitutes the major contribution to the scientific cooperation on Wendelstein 7-X.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory is taking on design of the scraper elements for the plasma edge of Wendelstein 7-X. The new components being introduced into planning are to enhance the device's performance in continuous operation and ensure greater experimental flexibility. The water-cooled plates have to withstand heavy heat loads of up to 20 megawatts per square metre. This will make it possible to protect wall sections across which the hot plasma will move to its final position in the first 30 seconds of the 30-minute plasma discharges. The sophisticated technology study is to be ready by the end of the year.

Finally, Los Alamos National Laboratory will provide the Wendelstein programme with measuring instruments for observing the , including refined infrared diagnostics: "We envision this three-year period", state the research institutes involved, "as a step toward a robust partnership in the Wendelstein 7-X research program that will involve physicists and engineers from many U.S. institutions in research that will make a significant impact on the world fusion program."

Explore further: Seeking 'absolute zero', copper cube gets chillingly close (Update)

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Taming thermonuclear plasma with a snowflake

Nov 08, 2010

Physicists working on the National Spherical Torus Experiment (NSTX) at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory are now one step closer to solving one of the grand challenges of magnetic fusion research -- ...

Upping the power triggers an ordered helical plasma

Nov 02, 2009

If you keep twisting a straight elastic string, at some moment it starts kinking in a wild way. Something similar occurs when one increases the electrical current flowing in a magnetized plasma doughnut: it ...

Wanted: the right wall material for ITER

Oct 12, 2007

ASDEX Upgrade at Max Planck Institute of Plasma Physics (IPP) in Garching, Germany, recently became the world's first and only device allowing experiments with a wall completely clad with metal, viz. tungsten. ...

ORNL, Princeton partners in five-year fusion project

Sep 14, 2005

Knowledge gained by Oak Ridge National Laboratory researchers and colleagues through an initiative to begin this fall could answer several long-standing questions and give the United States a competitive edge in the design ...

Recommended for you

Cooling with molecules

13 hours ago

An international team of scientists have become the first ever researchers to successfully reach temperatures below minus 272.15 degrees Celsius – only just above absolute zero – using magnetic molecules. ...

A 'Star Wars' laser bullet

14 hours ago

Action-packed science-fiction movies often feature colourful laser bolts. But what would a real laser missile look like during flight, if we could only make it out? How would it illuminate its surroundings? ...

User comments : 283

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jjoensuu
3 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2011
hmmm if they can make a micro-version of this device, that would be really interesting
gwrede
1 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2011
If solar panels and other "green" techologies keep getting cheaper at the current rate, I wonder whether there is any point in fusion research.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (65) Jul 07, 2011
If solar panels and other "green" techologies keep getting cheaper at the current rate, I wonder whether there is any point in fusion research.


LOL
SCVGoodToGo
5 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2011
The objective of fusion research is to develop a power plant that, like the sun, derives energy from fusion of atomic nuclei.


In before neutron repulsion
Moebius
3.5 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2011
...one of a total of nine projects in the Innovative Approaches to Fusion programme of the USA Department of Energy


Why don't they publicize stuff like this? Afraid the luddites would see it as a waste of money instead of a good investment? I didn't think they had sense enough to look for alternative ways of achieving fusion power.

Callippo
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2011
Actually it's the waste of money in comparison to cold fusion research. The hot fusion devices are producing a lotta neutrons, which would make whole device radioactive soon.
david_42
4.1 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2011
Unfortunately, "green" technologies are dead-ends. Solar will take huge amounts of space regardless of the efficiency. Ditto, any biofuel. Wind is erratic and the best locations are a long way from the cities that need the power. You also need base generation as large as your total 'green' tech or you can lose the entire grid when the wind fails.

Proton-boron fusion produces no neutrons, little gamma and both the fuel and byproducts are non-radioactive. Tougher than D-T, but well within the capabilities of the Polywell approach.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2011
If solar panels and other "green" techologies keep getting cheaper at the current rate, I wonder whether there is any point in fusion research.

Think about areas of the planet where the sun doesn't shine so much.
Think about polar regions that don't see the sun at all for long stretches at a time.
Think about future subsurface settlements on land or in the oceans.
Think about space exploration...
that_guy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
hmmm if they can make a micro-version of this device, that would be really interesting


It's called an arc reactor. Tony Stark already built it. Haven't you seen Iron Man? Geez.

I do like this new multipronged approach to fusion research.
Burnerjack
5 / 5 (3) Jul 07, 2011
David 42, Although I do indeed concur that solar would take massive square area to make significant contributions, and no less the challenge of providing the conduit from source to point, I also maintain that there are vast underutilized areas in the form of commercial size roofs that could be made to contribute a fair amount to the national demand.
But, yes, fusion could indeed yield a near 100% electric economy.
dirk_bruere
not rated yet Jul 07, 2011
Because people are coming to realize that a practical cheap reactor can never be made with Tokamaks?
RobertT
5 / 5 (1) Jul 07, 2011
If solar panels and other "green" techologies keep getting cheaper at the current rate, I wonder whether there is any point in fusion research.

Think about areas of the planet where the sun doesn't shine so much.
Think about polar regions that don't see the sun at all for long stretches at a time.
Think about future subsurface settlements on land or in the oceans.
Think about space exploration...


Those are not even the main advantage of fusion energy.

Do you have any idea of the scale of energy output that fusion energy potentially offers?
Callippo
1.6 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
Proton-boron fusion produces no neutrons, little gamma and both the fuel and byproducts are non-radioactive.

In theory only, but in praxis it releases neutrons anyway, just in somewhat lower extent. And it's one of most difficult fusions to run at all because of high potential barrier.
Callippo
1 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2011
Isn't it funny? The process which mainstream physicists are claiming impossible and refusing to research goes into industrial scale...

http://freerepubl...42/posts
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (71) Jul 07, 2011
Freepers creepers.

Begone.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (7) Jul 07, 2011
With the James Webb observatory now scheduled to be abandoned by the current Republican Congress, this project will also not likely see the light of day.
StarGazer2011
2.6 / 5 (5) Jul 07, 2011
cheap clean energy might lead people to ask for more than foodstamps, our leaders will not allow such disruption to stability.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2011
"Isn't it funny?" - Callippo

It wouldn't be nearly as funny if the Italian cold fusion plant wasn't being promoted by a former scam artist who has no credentials in physics.

FrankHerbert
2.2 / 5 (81) Jul 08, 2011
cheap clean energy might lead people to ask for more than foodstamps, our leaders will not allow such disruption to stability.


This makes me think of something related to Atlas Shrugged. John Galt invents a virtual perpetual motion machine and what does he use it for? The betterment of mankind? Not in Ayn Rand's twisted little mind.

Galt uses the greatest invention in the history of man to found the greatest gated community in the history of man. With all that free energy he can even power an invisibility cloak to make sure no lazy poors ever find it!

With free energy just about any economic system would work. I'm sure most have heard and many subscribe to the "utopias look great on paper" argument. Well this would be the "on paper" example.

So with virtually no obstacle in the way of providing for every person's needs, Galt founds a Disneyland for he and his friends.

It's not so idiotic as it is scary that people actually base their worldview on this crap.

A is A. ;-)
JIMBO
3 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2011
If the US govnt. had any brains (or balls), the would wake up from the 60 yr. fantasy/lie they've been living & invest in General Fusion, Inc., if they want to bring electric power to the wall sockets of N.America.
They of course could care less, & soon 60 yrs of BS will turn to 70 yrs of fusion failure.
flashgordon
1 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2011
James Webb space telescope axed? I was like, "I should have heard of this by now", and "I'm surprised Spacedaily or somebody hasn't reported this yet."

Well, here it is . . .

http://www.spaced...999.html

Truth is that the measure has to pass a bunch more votes; the other truth is that the Republicans are right on this one; it's way over budget; it's too bad because of the amount of work done on this already; on the that point, considering how far along they are already, why not finish it up? This article said it won't be launched till 2018; maybe I don't know when It will get launched, but by what I've heard, they're almost finished putting it together.
flashgordon
1 / 5 (3) Jul 08, 2011
I just found the physorg account of the James Webb cancellation(at least by the Republicans so far).
farmerpat42
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2011
So quick to blame republicans on the JWST. Blame NASA for being late and over budget (by several fold). That's not even taking into account the life cycle costs (for comparison HST was about 1.5bill initial (900mill planned) and almost 10bill lifecycle).
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (64) Jul 08, 2011
@FrankHerbert, You just demonstrated that you missed the entire point of Rands story. Wow.

It's remarkable that people who purport to value science would miss the core idea behind 'right-wing' mentality wrt capitalism; individualism and egoism has enormous inherent power in the intrinsic desire to better one's condition. In the story the gov was encroaching more and more upon free market capitalism, becoming more and more socialistic, and there removing the motive behind the inventors and industrialist. Without them, the economy would collapse and then renew itself again on capitalistic principals. That is the point. Socialism removes the motive force behind achieving innovation.

Your stupid comment implies that Galt was not a free man, that his genius was the property of society.
The book was an effort to contrast collectivism, entitlement, and socialistic mentality,... to individualism, self-reliance, capitalism,... and the natural consequence of each.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (60) Jul 08, 2011
,... The reason why capitalism does so much good is because it takes advantage of an existing natural force,.. egoistic individualism. The opposite, that which dampens that force, is collectivism, big government, left wing mentality.

Also Galt's invention was not a perpetual motion machine (did you actually read the book, or just a left-wing review of it).

From Wiki- "In their efforts, these people [innovators] hope to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where people are slaves to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society."
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (64) Jul 08, 2011
,.. in the book the government took on control and distribution of innovations created by individuals in ways counter to how capitalism naturally functions, and so like American public schools was doomed to failure.

Similar situation wrt the housing crash. The government ad-hoc'ily created institutions (fannie-Mae) which in effect functioned as a sink to the flow of bad investments ,.. this in turn created a market for sub-prime mortgages. The predictable liberal unintended consequence of their do-gooder mentality was that people bought or refinanced houses they never demonstrated they could afford.

You can blame the greedy bankers and wall street like a good little lefty,... but they acted inaccord with free-market principals as free individuals not owned by government nor society.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 10, 2011
Do you have any idea of the scale of energy output that fusion energy potentially offers?

Yes, and that's actually a drawback of fusion power. Large energy output means few, centralized powerplants.
This makes the entire system vulnerable to:
- exploitation by monopolies (i.e. indirect blackmail of politicians by the power companies like we are seeing now)
- vulnerability to natural disasters
- vulnerability to terrorism

By contrast it's EXTREMELY hard to sabotage a network where energy production is highly distributed (it's also pretty difficult to put a solar power plant out of production by terrorist means).
Such a network is also very resilent towards localized natural disasters (and it can put the means of power production in the hands of many - keeping prices low)
FrankHerbert
2.1 / 5 (78) Jul 10, 2011
@Noumenon
Also Galt's invention was not a perpetual motion machine

Do you really think this is anymore than playing semantics? Galt invents a machine that spits out free energy. Practically, how is this different from a perpetual motion machine? I will admit that I characterize it as such in order to deride it, but that doesn't mean it isn't worthy of derision.

Your stupid comment implies that Galt was not a free man, that his genius was the property of society.

You obviously miss the sad irony of Rand's work. For Galt to have his capitalist Shangri La, he invents a device that renders capitalism obsolete.

Since we are talking about a work of fiction, after all, let's compare Atlas Shrugged to Star Trek. Does poverty exist in the Federation? (No.) Money? (No.) How about property? (Sure does.)

Capitalism may be necessary prior to post-scarcity, but anyone who supports capitalism in spite of the existence of free energy is enforcing poverty to satisfy cruelty.
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (63) Jul 11, 2011
.....he invents a device that renders capitalism obsolete.


What!? That doesn't even make sense. Capitalism isn't about obtaining energy, it's about making things and providing services that people desire. In fact dirt cheap oil is what sparked industrialization. If say fusion renders energy cheap and capitalism continued, explain how that in any way would cause poverty. Your premise is absurd and arbitrary.

In anycase, Rand never said anything about "free energy". Galt invented a device that generated energy from static electricity in the atmosphere,... FAR from perpetual free energy. YOU invented that notion purely in order to demonize the character Galt.

Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (65) Jul 11, 2011
,.. It's clear that you never even read the book. If you did you would have understood that those creators and entrepreneurs that create jobs and industry, never had the intention of permantly abandoning the rest of society. So even if Galt invented a "perpetual free energy machine" as you wrongly implied, he was waiting for the socialistic minded gov to collapse in on itself before making use of it. This is plainly clear in the story. Read the book itself rather than getting your opinion from some lying left wing critique.

Their plan was to let socialistic society collapse without them, then return to start over on capitalistic principals, once it is clear to all that government controlling economy never works.
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (64) Jul 11, 2011
For Galt to have his capitalist Shangri,....


It's the left wing liberal and socialistic mentality that desires some fantasy child-like utopian society were no one ever suffers. "Right-wingers" have the maturity to understand this is not possible, nor in accord with nature,.. that competition and survival of the fittest must be the driving force of societies. Darwin applied ideas from Malthus to nature. Socialism is ad-hoc and by definition counter to nature, while capitalism is in harmony with natural forces and instincts of man.

Somewhere in the middle we make do.
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (62) Jul 11, 2011
The religious right replace Darwinism with a magic god to escape from harsh realities,... as the liberal left replace the foundation of Darwinism (Mathusism) with magic social engineering,... both are, unscientific, ad-hoc, and counter to unavoidable natural forces.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (15) Jul 11, 2011
With free energy just about any economic system would work. I'm sure most have heard and many subscribe to the "utopias look great on paper" argument. Well this would be the "on paper" example.
For a time. There's always entropy and waste heat to consider as well as that pesky Malthusian equation.

So many cultures to destroy, so little time.

Herr noumenon what ARE you babbling on about?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 11, 2011
Since we are talking about a work of fiction, after all, let's compare Atlas Shrugged to Star Trek. Does poverty exist in the Federation?
Perhaps not but the cause of it, overpopulation, still exists:
http://www.startr...f-gideon
Money?
 "Nature decays, but latinum lasts forever."
- 102nd Rule of Acquisition (DS9: "The Jem'Hadar")
How about property? (Sure does.)
Yes but the lust for it is still vilified as personified in ferengi capitalism and the evil collector kivas frajo.
http://en.wikiped...ost_Toys

-I trust you will in the future be exhibiting more diligence in choosing and checking sources?
thales
5 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2011
I love that this thread went to Star Trek rather than the usual neutron repulsion/electric universe/aether/etc.

From what I understand, the Federation doesn't use money (latinum or otherwise) internally, only as it deals with cultures that do. Come on, that was Roddenberry's socialistic vision!

Frank has a point - the primary point of capitalism is the efficient use and distribution of resources. If resources are effectively unlimited, why not give everyone what they want?
lengould100
2.7 / 5 (7) Jul 11, 2011
"the foundation of Darwinism (Mathusism)"
Well,,, in addition to demonstrating your inability to functionally analyze economics (many analysts are coming to the rational conclusion that a society's wealth exactly equals its expenditure of energy - eg. observe as oil available for import drops dramatically in near future) you're sure demonsrating you inability to understand evolution.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (77) Jul 11, 2011
@Otto

I enjoyed your post. As far as money goes, Thales explained that the Federation only used money when dealing with other cultures that did e.g. Ferengi.

As far as property, we are in agreement here. I was simply trying to illustrate that the Federation still allows property, not that amassing as much as possible is considered a virtue.

-I trust you will in the future be exhibiting more diligence in choosing and checking sources?

I don't agree with your criticism of my source. I believe Star Trek is a good contrast to Atlas Shrugged as they both are predicated on the existence of free energy and both take radically different courses with such technology.

@Thales

Come on, that was Roddenberry's socialistic vision!

Exactly.

If resources are effectively unlimited, why not give everyone what they want?

I'll tell you why. 'They' didn't 'earn' it. It's not that Galt is entitled to a good life for his invention; he's entitled to a better life than everyone else.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 11, 2011
However, with free energy everyone would have equal access to wealth and everyone would have an essentially unlimited quality of life. This is not good enough for a Randite.

An unlimited quality of life just isn't good enough. A Randite must also limit the quality of life of others for no other reason than a false sense of achievement. If you think "welfare queens in their Cadillacs" piss conservatives off just wait until they get jet packs!
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (61) Jul 11, 2011
However, with free energy everyone would have equal access to wealth and everyone would have an essentially unlimited quality of life.


This makes absolutely zero sense.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (62) Jul 11, 2011
.
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (63) Jul 11, 2011
"the foundation of Darwinism (Mathusism)"
Well,,, in addition to demonstrating your inability to functionally analyze economics (many analysts are coming to the rational conclusion that a society's wealth exactly equals its expenditure of energy - eg. observe as oil available for import drops dramatically in near future) you're sure demonsrating you inability to understand evolution.


What point are you responding to? That is a means of measuring wealth because energy is a factor. Frank is saying that if energy was no longer a factor capitalism would be obsolete, everyone would have the same standard of living. That makes no sense as goods and services and demand and supply would still exist. If I gave everyone on the planet one million dollars, it wouldn't make a ratzl-ass difference, but only to change the numerical value of th dollar.
TheGhostofOtto1923
1.8 / 5 (12) Jul 11, 2011
Frank has a point - the primary point of capitalism is the efficient use and distribution of resources. If resources are effectively unlimited, why not give everyone what they want?
-Because replicators and holodecks are not quite the same as the real thing, are they now? And there is only one Data (well there was Lore but he wouldn't be quite the same either).

And there is also gambling.

@frank
Oh sorry man that was all meant to be a dig at the evil metaphysicist noumenon. I thought that was his post. I got confuseded.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (74) Jul 12, 2011
@Noumenon

Capitalism would not vanish overnight but the advent of free energy would be its death knell.

That makes no sense as goods and services and demand and supply would still exist.

Goods and services take energy to produce and/or are stores of energy themselves. The most profitable corporations in the world are all oil companies. How do you think free energy would affect them and their shareholders?

Automation will continue to increase and will cost increasing less to maintain. How does capitalism work when there is systemic majority unemployment? Not everyone can be a stock broker, doctor, soldier, or other conservative approved occupation.

If I gave everyone on the planet one million dollars, it wouldn't make a ratzl-ass difference, but only to change the numerical value of th dollar.


Free energy is not inflation. Money is a store of wealth. Energy -is- wealth. Wealth stored as money can be lost via inflation, but energy is inherently valuable.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (74) Jul 12, 2011
And I think you're missing the point. It's not that a free energy economy would render capitalism obsolete. It would render money itself obsolete. How can capitalism work without money?

And I should clarify. In the past posts I've sort of conflated "free energy" with "post-scarcity." It's my opinion that post-scarcity will actually lead to the end of money and capitalism, but free energy will inevitably lead to post-scarcity thus making them acceptably interchangeable in this context.

This brings me back to my original point. In Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek, virtually unlimited energy leads to a post-scarcity society that has abolished money as well as most of societies' lesser problems.

In Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged, John Galt's virtually unlimited energy source is used to ferry the worthy away from the dregs of society. Give a man a machine that spits out fish every day forever for free and he'll eat forever, but teach a man to fish... wow that one really falls apart, doesn't it?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (74) Jul 12, 2011
If I gave everyone on the planet one million dollars, it wouldn't make a ratzl-ass difference, but only to change the numerical value of th dollar.


Just to come back to this, giving everyone access to free energy would be more like giving everyone a million barrels of oil than it would be like giving everyone a million federal reserve notes.

Where did you get your understanding of inflation, talk radio?
antialias_physorg
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2011
If I gave everyone on the planet one million dollars, it wouldn't make a ratzl-ass difference,

Actually it would. It would put those who have nothing on an equal footing (or as near as makes no difference) with those who have substantially less than 1 million to their names.

(Although it would likely make the latter group effectively as poor as the former since the money isn't backed up by anything and we'd have a sudden burst of hyperinflation - rendering the savings of the 'not so poor' group worthless)

But as FrankHerbert says: Making energy ubiquitous and free is the crucial step for our civilization to move from the age of scarcity (or governmental hierarchy/capitalism if you prefer) into an age of equality (or the original definition of 'anarchy'. Which is by no means the same as 'chaos' but quite the opposite)



Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (60) Jul 12, 2011
Although it would likely make the latter group effectively as poor as the former since the money isn't backed up by anything and we'd have a sudden burst of hyperinflation - rendering the savings of the 'not so poor' group worthless)


Yes, that was the point of my post. It would make no relative difference.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (77) Jul 12, 2011
I'm not going to discuss "free-energy" anymore with you, because that was never Galts invention, YOU made that up in order to construct a straw man to argue with. I already explain what Galts invention was,... think of it as competeing with the cheapest energy source rather than "perpetual free-energy", as that is neither in Rands book or even physically rational,... so it is a non sequitur.

Give a man a machine that spits out fish every day forever for free and he'll eat forever, but teach a man to fish... wow that one really falls apart, doesn't it?

This is your problem, you go from free-energy to free-everything-else without taking the necessary step in between, which is that people still must produce things of value. The existence of cheap energy does not dos cause magic fish machines to appear. As Mathus showed there can be no liberal PETA'esque utopia because people will ALWAYS compete for resources. The experiment has been tried and failed.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (76) Jul 12, 2011
,... my point with giving everyone one million dollars or oil (no difference) is that by doing so, I merely applied a scaler field which makes no relative difference. Someone still has to sweep the floor.

Goods and services take energy to produce and/or are stores of energy themselves. The most profitable corporations in the world are all oil companies. How do you think free energy would affect them and their shareholders?

Automation will continue to increase []. How does capitalism work when there is systemic majority unemployment? Not everyone can be a stock broker, doctor, soldier, or other conservative approved occupation.


You're like the man who was against weaving-looms because he thought it would cause mass starvation, or the man who was against Ford because he thought it would put horse carriage makers out of work.

Products take energy to make yes , but you irrationally equate that cost to the ENTIRE value of the product,.. which is a fallacy.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (59) Jul 12, 2011
Although it would likely make the latter group effectively as poor as the former since the money isn't backed up by anything and we'd have a sudden burst of hyperinflation - rendering the savings of the 'not so poor' group worthless)


Yes, that was the point of my post. It would make no relative difference.


The amount of inflation would be just enough to cancel the effect of giving everyone one million dollars. The same ultimately applies to sudden found ultra-cheap energy source, as companies would find they could produce cheaper and therefore would force other companies to lower their price,.. and so money would have more buying power accross the board,.. and a scaler equal cause zero relative difference.

@Frank&loincloth, no I don't get my economics from talk radio, but it's clear to me you get your's from a borderline cartoon show; star-trek.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2011
This is your problem, you go from free-energy to free-everything-else without taking the necessary step in between, which is that people still must produce things of value.

The point is that with free energy you can effectively get 'free anything' - since everything can be reduced down to energy (or close enough so that it makes next to no difference). The entire concept of 'value' will vanish if you have enough energy to extract whatever materials you wish out of a 'handful of dirt'. It's all in there. Currently it's just not economically viable to get it out. But with an infinite/free energy source that no longer matters.

After that it's just a matter of getting everyone the means to produce whatever they, themselves, need (think: rapid prototyping at home). From then on 'value' - which is another word for scarcity - has no meaning anymore.

Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (77) Jul 12, 2011
However, with free energy everyone would have equal access to wealth and everyone would have an essentially unlimited quality of life.

To prove this statement utterly absurd,... The energy cost of manufacturing a typical car is less than 10% the cost in energy used by that car during it's life. So, if energy were "free" it would not render the intrinsic value of the car zero.

An unlimited quality of life just isn't good enough. A Randite must also limit the quality of life of others for no other reason than a false sense of achievement.
Natural forces limit the quality of life, and capitalism operates in accord with nature. Your supposed 'unlimited quality of life due to free energy' is patently absurd, both premise and conclusion are fallacies. You question my lack of economic sense, but base your argument on ideas from a fantasy tv show.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (77) Jul 12, 2011
This is your problem, you go from free-energy to free-everything-else without taking the necessary step in between, which is that people still must produce things of value.

The point is that with free energy you can effectively get 'free anything' - since everything can be reduced down to energy (or close enough so that it makes next to no difference). The entire concept of 'value' will vanish if you have enough energy to extract whatever materials you wish out of a 'handful of dirt'. It's all in there. Currently it's just not economically viable to get it out. But with an infinite/free energy source that no longer matters.


The premise is simply irrational non-sense. Cheap energy does not render products valueless, as the energy cost of manufacturing represents only a small %. People still have to agree to MAKE the things,.. they won't spring up from the dirt on there own. Oil at one time was already dirt cheap, and it didn't result in communism.
antialias_physorg
3.7 / 5 (7) Jul 12, 2011
Oil at one time was already dirt cheap,

But the production of same was not available to all - no matter how cheap it was. If you can take any input and render it down into its component atoms (no problem with enough energy) and then build from the ground on up - what *couldn't* you build at home?

As for 'communism'. That too relies on a concept of value (stuff is still as scarce in communism as it is in capitalism - so stuff still has value - even though it belongs to everyone)

With 'free anything' we'll get to the point where the legitimacy of any kind of government structure will be rendered moot (which it basically already is - but we tend to stick to old ideas)
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (77) Jul 12, 2011
@antialias
I think I have demonstrated that Frank either lied about Rands book or never read it, or failed to understand it. Rand, albeit rather ignorant of science at the time, never had Galt invent a free-energy device; (I explained above how it worked). In anycase, since such a thing is not physically possible, it's not a logically legitimate premise for undermining Rands principals, nor capitalism. So things that can't exist can't have effects on things that do.

Be that as it may. The notion that free-energy would make capitalism obsolete and everyone's standard of living equal, is still absurd even in man-child Dingleberry's star-trek world. Frank never explains how to go from free-energy to the production of Things, because the production of Things would make people unequal.

Now, you perport to solve this dilemma by invoking a magic device, so anyone can just print out, atom by atom anything they want. So now you are layering more false notions to defeat capitalism
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (77) Jul 12, 2011
,... ohhh but only it were possible to build things atom by atom in a reasonable amount of time, and only if everyone were equal in abilities that they too could design such things that they desired at home by themselves,.. and only if it were possible that free-energy was physically possible to begin with,... then, yes then, capitalism would be finished!!!

Note to self; never attend a star-trek convention.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 12, 2011
I'm not going to discuss "free-energy" anymore with you, because that was never Galts invention

If it quacks like a perpetual motion machine...
you go from free-energy to free-everything-else without taking the necessary step in between, which is that people still must produce things of value.

I said capitalism wouldn't disappear overnight. Sure people would still make things with value, but how do you put a price on it without money? Even with money, how do you have a functioning economy when automation eliminates all the jobs?
Someone still has to sweep the floor.

Seriously? Have you not heard of Roomba? You can have your very own for <$200.
As Mathus showed there can be no liberal PETA'esque utopia because people will ALWAYS compete for resources.

PETA? What do they have to do with this?

People will compete for resources for as long as they are scarce. Scarcity is already largely due to mismanagement. Remove the human element and fix the problem.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 12, 2011
my point with giving everyone one million dollars or oil (no difference)


There is a hell of a lot of difference and I already explained why, twice. You're criticizing me for not having read Rand (masturbatory fiction). Have you read Locke? (Who is, by the way, a real philosopher.)

Say we live in natural anarchy, and there are some apple trees. You go pick an apple. The act of expending your labor to pick it makes it yours. So you get hungry you go pick an apple. What happens if you try to horde all the apples? They'll go bad faster than you can eat them. What happens in the winter when there are no apples to pick?

Now let's say you tend to the land around the trees, shape it, maybe plant some more trees. You can now claim the land as your labor has affected it, improved it. It's now your property and so are the apples. You trade apples for other food but they still spoil. You have no way storing any excess apples or more importantly, they're purchasing power.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 12, 2011
So if you have a season with a great harvest, all the excess will just rot.

People got tired of this, so they started using durable otherwise worthless metals as a store of wealth, because they won't rot. So if you have a thousand extra bushels of apples one season, you can sell them for gold, save the gold over the winter and use it the next summer to buy more food.

Okay, now that we have remedially established the origin of money, we can get back to inflation. Now let's pretend no one has ever dug deeper than a foot. Someone decides to do that and discovers the Earth is solid gold. Well shit, there goes that economy huh? This would be the same as giving everyone an unlimited amount of money, essentially infinite inflation.

However, giving everyone an unlimited amount of food is totally different. You can eat food. Food has inherent value. Even if there is more food than anyone could possibly ever need, people will still need it. Money is only needed if the economy demands it.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 12, 2011
And now we get to the crux of the issue. Food itself is energy. If you're not putting gas in a machine to do work for you, than you're putting food into yourself to do the work much less efficiently. Energy, or any store of it, has inherent value independent of the supply (or existence) of currency.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 12, 2011
You're like the man who was against weaving-looms because he thought it would cause mass starvation, or the man who was against Ford because he thought it would put horse carriage makers out of work.

No, and I don't know how you got this impression. What I am against is imposing "mass starvation" on people simply because there isn't enough work to go around. People should never be made to work for the sake of working. If a machine can do the job better great.

But you have to realize that the march of technology is invariably steady and automation will most likely eliminate unskilled labor in our lifetime. Do you really think capitalism can function either with massive unemployment or a society entirely comprised of professionals? You said it yourself "someone has to sweep the floor [under capitalism]."

Products take energy to make yes , but you irrationally equate that cost to the ENTIRE value of the product


Antialias_physorg explained this.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 12, 2011
no I don't get my economics from talk radio, but it's clear to me you get your's from a borderline cartoon show; star-trek.


For your information there was a Star Trek cartoon in the early 70's called Phase II. But to the point, I was simply comparing two works of science fiction with similar technology yet opposite themes.

To prove this statement utterly absurd,... The energy cost of manufacturing a typical car is less than 10% the cost in energy used by that car during it's life. So, if energy were "free" it would not render the intrinsic value of the car zero.


What's the other 90%? Parts?

Where does the cost of the parts come from? Mining, refining, and manufacturing, all of which require great amounts of energy.

Labor?

Machines already do most of the work in manufacturing vehicles. Do you expect this trend to stop?

You really have a knack for picking examples that don't support your case. Better luck next time.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 12, 2011
You question my lack of economic sense, but base your argument on ideas from a fantasy tv show.

Wait, Atlas Shrugged is a true story?!

Oil at one time was already dirt cheap, and it didn't result in communism.

Oil was cheaper in the past because it had few uses. As more uses were discovered it's price went up. Now it is the main store of energy that our economy is based on. You claim to understand supply and demand. What's so hard to understand?

Rand, albeit rather ignorant of science at the time, never had Galt invent a free-energy device; (I explained above how it worked).


Once again, if it quacks like a perpetual motion machine...

In anycase, since such a thing is not physically possible, it's not a logically legitimate premise for undermining Rands principals, nor capitalism. So things that can't exist can't have effects on things that do.


Oh, so if Rand writes the impossible into her books, its my fault for pointing it out?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 12, 2011
Now, you perport to solve this dilemma by invoking a magic device, so anyone can just print out, atom by atom anything they want. So now you are layering more false notions to defeat capitalism

Such devices are FAR CLOSER to reality than any power generator that runs on ambient static electricity (perpetual motion). It's a matter of refining existing technology to work on smaller scales, not discovering new physics as Galt's device would require.

ohhh but only it were possible to build things atom by atom


Was your car built atom by atom? How about anything you own? Then why do machines have to build things atom by atom? We most likely will achieve such technology someday, but machines are already capable of building things themselves without doing it on the atomic scale. If you expect the trend to reverse, I don't know what to say.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 12, 2011
Note to self; never attend a star-trek convention.


Lol, you are the one that bases your worldview on a work of fiction. I was merely comparing it to another work of fiction to show you how absurd this is. Unsurprisingly, this was lost on you.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (77) Jul 12, 2011
In anycase, since such a thing is not physically possible, it's not a logically legitimate premise for undermining Rands principals, nor capitalism. So things that can't exist can't have effects on things that do.


Oh, so if Rand writes the impossible into her books, its my fault for pointing it out?


Frank, you took advantage of Rands lack of technological or scientific knowledge to attempt to undermine her capitalistic outlook, and main theme of the book. This is dishonest at best. An honest liberal would not have falsely read into Galts work as free-energy, but merely a competitive energy source. Galts invention itself is not important to the main theme.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (59) Jul 12, 2011
Your 4th grade level economics lecture did not add to the discussion. I know what money is.

no I don't get my economics from talk radio, but it's clear to me you get your's from a borderline cartoon show; star-trek.
To prove this statement utterly absurd,... The energy cost of manufacturing a typical car is less than 10% the cost in energy used by that car during it's life. So, if energy were "free" it would not render the intrinsic value of the car zero.


What's the other 90%? Parts?

Where does the cost of the parts come from? Mining, refining, and manufacturing, all of which require great amounts of energy.

Labor?


Total energy cost, Frank. That means parts, everything. That estimate comes from environmental tree-huggers even.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (76) Jul 12, 2011
But you have to realize that the march of technology is invariably steady and automation will most likely eliminate unskilled labor in our lifetime. Do you really think capitalism can function either with massive unemployment or a society entirely comprised of professionals? You said it yourself "someone has to sweep the floor [under capitalism]."


Economies are supported by consumption,.. an unemployed work force cannot consume, therefore there products will not be made purely by automation. Free market capitalistic economies are self regulating in this sense.

Industries are not stupid,.. they won't (can't) have no workforce because no one will then be able to afford to buy there product. It's not a conscious decision is a natural eb and flow.

As an analogy consider oil again (although ignore it's a commodity), in particular OPEC. Now OPEC does NOT want to just arbitrarily keep increasing prices. Why? Because they would price themselves out of the market, use would drop.
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (75) Jul 12, 2011
A similar effect occurs wrt taxes. It is possible, as has been proven, that the government can actually gain MORE revenue by CUTTING taxes, because by doing so more workers are available to tax.

If there is increased unemployment then there is decreased consumption, so it never gets to the point of the Jetsons, so your premise is again a non-sequitar.

There will always be a range of classes, as is purely natural. Forcing all classes to be equal is counter to nature, and is what results in massive death and starvation. Marx said value is purely labour. Mao and Stalin are the natural conclusion of engineered economies.

QED
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (73) Jul 12, 2011

The USSR and China were/are not classless societies.

QED

Also, where's your evidence for the Laffer curve?
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (60) Jul 12, 2011
@Ethelred, Thanks for the drive by bucket of 1's. An old liberal is a sad thing. Hope you're at least having fun with the meaningless rating system though.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (77) Jul 12, 2011

The USSR and China were/are not classless societies.

QED

Also, where's your evidence for the Laffer curve?


Well true, china can't be purely communistic with the world economy.

As to the tax effect, look it up,... I think Regan. In anycase it's correct by simple logic, though not mush-headed liberal logic.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (75) Jul 12, 2011

An old liberal is a sad thing.

That estimate comes from environmental tree-huggers even.

An honest liberal would not have falsely read into Galts work as free-energy, but merely a competitive energy source.

Note to self; never attend a star-trek convention.

You're like the man who was against weaving-looms because he thought it would cause mass starvation, or the man who was against Ford because he thought it would put horse carriage makers out of work.

As Mathus showed there can be no liberal PETA'esque utopia because people will ALWAYS compete for resources.

It's the left wing liberal and socialistic mentality that desires some fantasy child-like utopian society were no one ever suffers.


How many times have you otherized people, just in this topic Noumenon? I could have posted more but ran up against the character limit. It's really ugly behavior.

Please visit:
http://www.wisdom...erizing/

Please try to improve.
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2011
@Ethelred, Thanks for the drive by bucket of 1's.
Your welcome. You earned them, please note that I did not rank all your posts with a one.

An old liberal is a sad thing.
Crap like that sort of RightWingNutRetainerClip nonsense gets a one every time I see it. I not a liberal but I am aware that Randites think anyone that is not equally delusional is a vile evil commie pinko fascist LIBERAL and that somehow liberal is the worst insult available. Rand and the Bible. The two biggest sources of a disconnect from reality in the United States.

Hope you're at least having fun with the meaningless rating system though.
If it was meaningless to you then you would not have bothered with that idiotic post. And you claim to have taken logic classes. How did you pass?

How many times have you otherized people, just in this topic Noumenon?
That is why he got my ones. Same as Marjon.

Ethelred
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2011
Translation: I can not accept any reality that challenges my Tard Libertarian/Randite ideology.

"This makes absolutely zero sense. " - NoumTard
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Jul 14, 2011
I bring order to chaos. The only good Republican is a dead Republican.- Vendicar_Decarian


"America is dying from it's own ignorance and it's it's massive corruption. This is a very good thing for the world." - Vendicar_Decarian


"I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar and therefore worthy of being skinned alive."- Vendicar_Decarian


Translation: I can not accept any reality that challenges my childish Liberal/Anti-capitalist ideology.

You have proven yourself a vitriolic child.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jul 14, 2011
Ethelred, all I have done above is to prove Frank never read the book,.. and to point out you can't use a physically impossible device to undermine Rands core theme,.. and it's make no rational sense to say ultra cheap energy would render money valueless. Anti-Alais at least attempted to explain this, but still didn't make sense as competition would still exist so value still exists.

I know shows like star-trek don't get into the nuts and bolts of their idealistic fantasy worlds,... but perhaps YOU can educate me in this?

Perhaps vendicar could explain it to me?
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (60) Jul 14, 2011
Crap like that sort of RightWingNutRetainerClip nonsense gets a one every time I see it. I not a liberal but I am aware that Randites think anyone that is not equally delusional is a vile evil commie pinko fascist LIBERAL and that somehow liberal is the worst insult available.


You just caricatured "randites" as bad as I did liberals. Did you not see this post,...

It's the left wing liberal and socialistic mentality that desires some fantasy child-like utopian society were no one ever suffers. "Right-wingers" have the maturity to understand this is not possible, nor in accord with nature,.. that competition and survival of the fittest must be the driving force of societies. Darwin applied ideas from Malthus to nature. Socialism is ad-hoc and by definition counter to nature, while capitalism is in harmony with natural forces and instincts of man.

Somewhere in the middle we make do.


Liberalism is a bad word with 14 trillion in debt. QED
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (77) Jul 14, 2011
,... also Ethelred,... you might recall the whole hate-bush, hate-fox news fad mentality,... so don't give this non-sense about caricatures from the right. At least conservatives have a principled basis,.. we pay China 500 billion a year just in interest, 14 trillion in debt (Obama already 5 times worse than even Bush,.. and wants MORE spending!!),... California, other states, Greece, other european countries,.. all borderline bankrupt due to LIBERAL entitlement mentality. Young know-nothings lefties (a mob of vendicars) rioting in the street because of rewuired austerity, like children being put to bed early. Yea, but no, you're right, conservatives are the bad guys /rolleyes.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
I wrote up a fairly specific reply to that delusional and illogical nonsense but I then I decided that this guy said it better.

From Kung Fu Monkey
-- There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.


http://kfmonkey.b...9-7.html

Ethelred
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 14, 2011
That's better than a "fairly specific reply"?!! That quote is vacuous of meaningful content. Just more semi-clever colourful word-salad, and sweeping generalizations designed to invoke vague impressions. The opposite of logic.

I'm not getting into a link battle and won't read that one. Where I'm I being illogical, specifically?

[EDIT: ok I clicked on that link,.. and remarkably that's all there was on Atlas Shrugged!!!]
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Jul 14, 2011
,.. it's likely that neither Ethelred nor Frank even read the book they hate so much.

The post immediately prior to your reply contains facts not opinions, so how is it "delusional and illogical nonsense"?
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 14, 2011
,... how does ultra cheap energy cause money to have no value and thus make capitalism obsolete?

Frank misrepresents Rands book as meaning "free-energy", but since this is a physical impossibility (whether Rand meant that or not),.. it can't be used to undermine capitalism on a logical basis..
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (74) Jul 14, 2011
This is as bad as Johan's "god must exist because you have feelings/chemicals don't have feelings!" argument. Let's go through it point by point.

Frank misrepresents Rands book as meaning "free-energy",


No, I correctly characterized Galt's device as supplying free energy.

but since this is a physical impossibility


Atlas Shrugged is fiction.

(whether Rand meant that or not),..


It doesn't matter whether she meant it or not. Most fiction has plenty of impossibilities but they are still relevant to the plot. Do you really think the gulch would succeed if all those champions of capitalism were forced to mine coal or drill for oil?

it can't be used to undermine capitalism on a logical basis..


It can be when Rand wasn't working on a logical basis.

Just more semi-clever colourful word-salad, and sweeping generalizations designed to invoke vague impressions. The opposite of logic.


A = A?
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
That's better than a "fairly specific reply"?!!
Sure. You aren't dealing with what people really say. You keep changing things and evading.

That quote is vacuous of meaningful content.
Much like your posts. Except it was funny. You have no sense of humor which is clear evidence that Rand does cause brain damage. Or you never had one and that is why you believe a fantasy world is relevant to our world.

The opposite of logic.
Coming from you that means SO much. How much? Zero. You have made so many illogical statements you clearly have no clue as to what logic is.

I'm not getting into a link battle and won't read that one.
Of course not. Reality isn't something Rand fans do. However I was just giving credit to the source. He deserves it.

Where I'm I being illogical, specifically?
Ranting about the wonderousness of a FICTIONAL FANTASY LAND vs the horrors of a fictional tv series. That you can't see that as illogical is not a surprise.>>
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (72) Jul 14, 2011
Ranting about the wonderousness of a FICTIONAL FANTASY LAND vs the horrors of a fictional tv series. That you can't see that as illogical is not a surprise.>>


To quote my favorite admiral "IT'S A TRAP!!"
Ethelred
4 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2011
and remarkably that's all there was on Atlas Shrugged!!!
Credit where credit is due. Obviously logic is not the only thing you are as bad at as I am at leaving out words.

it's likely that neither Ethelred nor Frank even read the book they hate so much.
A thousand pages of libertarian fantasy? Why read it when I have seen how it rots brains. The movie version of Fountainhead was bad enough. I want those two hours back.

The post immediately prior to your reply contains facts not opinions,
Lie. It contains opinions that are not based on fact. And that is what is illogical about it. What next? Will you quote Marjon's opinions and call them facts like he does with blogs?

how does ultra cheap energy cause money to have no value and thus make capitalism obsolete?
Where did I say that? Nowhere. Really this is like arguing with Dogbert and Johanness. You try to make up both sides of the discussion. I tend to notice thing like that.>>
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 14, 2011
Franky, you didn't read the book. The salient point of the story is NOT grounded on the invention of Galt. You refuse to acknowledge this because you would rather attack capitalism with deceit than with understanding.

Rand could have just written that the creators and entrepreneurs just quit their work and got menial jobs, instead of even mentioning Galts invention. She mentioned it only to get the lead character to hunt for Galt. Free-energy is irrelevant to the story, understand!?

The point of the story is that without entrepreneurs seeking profit, there is no motive force for innovations being brough to mass market. In the story, the gov was encroahing upon a natural supply and demand, and institution ad-hoc controls and "fairness" measures which is like throughout a proverbial wrench into the works.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2011
Frank misrepresents Rands book as meaning "free-energy"
He was simply showing that the sociopath was a greedy worthless miserable excuse for a human being. Kind of like an Enron executive.

but since this is a physical impossibility (whether Rand meant that or not),.. it can't be used to undermine capitalism on a logical basis
It isn't Frank's fault that Rand was incompetent. Then again it isn't Frank's fault that you can't understand what he REALLY said and keep changing it to mean something different. He was pointing out that RAND, not capitalism, has a sociopath masquerading as a hero. Kind of like the mad dog in Fountainhead.

And no I am not going to read either of those. The level of intellectual dishonesty that I see from the fans is not exactly a sign that the books are worth even a moment of my life. I am not going to read Wuthering Heights either. It too, clearly causes brain damage.

Ethelred
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (73) Jul 14, 2011
Free-energy is irrelevant to the story, understand!?


Actually it's not. Let's compare Atlas Shrugged to history for a change. What happens when people starve? They revolt.

How is Atlas Shrugged different? Galt invents an invisibility cloak (because capitalists are so smart they can single-handedly invent two sci-fi level inventions). So the gulch doesn't have to worry about getting overran with poors. But what powers it? Galt's free energy device.

Without the device the gulch would fall apart. Please explain to me without non-existent technology (magic) how Galt would keep the inhabitants of his gulch from being murdered by the poor? History is fairly clear on this.

A=A
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jul 14, 2011
Ethelred, I could have programmer my computer to post the reply you just made,.. just more subjective argumentative vacuous non-sense. Zero facts, nor concrete objections.

The core point of Rands book is not fiction. Capitalism and conservatism are existent realities access the globe. Further, neither one of you two knuckleheads are qualified to say anything about that book because neither of you have read it, nor could provide an objective reply against it as I requested a multitude of times.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jul 14, 2011
Without the device the gulch would fall apart. Please explain to me without non-existent technology (magic) how Galt would keep the inhabitants of his gulch from being murdered by the poor? History is fairly clear on this


Did you read what I posted above? The "gulch" and Galts invention are not relevant to the core point of the book. I said this ten times! She could have had Galt just get a menial job. Galt represens people who create, people who desire profit, people who will get things to market, innovators,.. not merely consumers,.. get it? Rand just used a literary device in the gulch and Galts device to get Dagney to search for them. The "gulch" is not a government, for the poor to come and attack, they are free citizens who can choose not to innovate if they please. That is the point they stopped to send a message that economies cannot function without them.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
Ethelred, I could have programmer my computer to post the reply you just made
Programming requires logic so no you couldn't. Couldn't have done it even if you could manage logic. Lack of realism is the hallmark of Randites.

just more subjective argumentative vacuous non-sense. Zero facts, nor concrete objections.
Just following your lead. I don't need to go find links when you don't do it when you made the original bullshit posts. And I did show your logic wasn't. The evidence there is in your posts.

The core point of Rands book is not fiction.
Bullshit. Fantasy people, with fantasy tech, with fantasy economics. Its all fiction. Unless of course you can show actual historical events were in the book.

Capitalism and conservatism are existent realities access the globe.
So is brain damage and badly run wars. And VPs that shoot their friends.>>
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 14, 2011
,... Likewise the top 5% of earners in the USA pay the vast majority of taxes, while the lower 50% pay zero. So theoretically the top industry leaders and innovators and entrepreneurs could as free citizens just up and quite if they felt the gov trying to redistribute their intellectual property on liberal "fairness" grounds . The entire economy would collapse, because the gov is not of itself competent without a profit motivation.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (72) Jul 14, 2011
Rand just used a literary device


A literary device in a work of literature?! Well I never!

The "gulch" is not a government, for the poor to come and attack


It doesn't have to be. If they have food they are on the list. The gulch can only survive because its invisible.

That is the point they stopped to send a message that economies cannot function without them.


I'm getting a distinct image of the Legion of Doom rising out of a swamp.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 14, 2011
Please explain to me without non-existent technology (magic) how Galt would keep the inhabitants of his gulch from being murdered by the poor? History is fairly clear on this

This is so off topic to the book that it makes no sense for me to continue this dialog. Clearly your entire knowledge of Rand has been filtered by a left winger who has provided you with you opinion,.. just add mush-head water.

Further , I can not continue discussion with Ethelred as clearly he to is ignorant of the book, and is arguing merely for sport, and I must say pretty childish. PS I worked as a software developer for six years and have written technical articles for print,.. so more clueless child banter from you.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2011
Further, neither one of you two knuckleheads are qualified to say anything about that book
False. You are clearly delusional on economics and since you got your idiot ideas from the books that is ample evidence that the books are grossly incompetent on economics. And as I pointed out I did see Fountainhead and I don't see you claiming the movie misrepresented the behavior of the sociopath-protagonist.

nor could provide an objective reply against it as I requested a multitude of times.
I have yet to see you, a person that claims to have read it, give a single objective comment on it. Plus your lack of logic makes it clear that you simply cannot manage to be objective. You have to admit that Star Trek is good counter example and that is the sort of thing that grossly incompetent people like Marjon do. I never thought you were in their class before. I am very sorry to find that you simply are incapable of seeing something so obvious.

Ethelred
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (74) Jul 14, 2011
On another point, I'll just go ahead and admit that I never read the book. I never claimed I did, but after a while it became amusing to just not address the subject when Noumenon brought it up.

Anyway, it is VERY obvious that even if I had read the book, by the very act of disagreeing with it, Noumenon would have been convinced I had not read it. "How could anyone disagree with Rand actually having read her," is how his thought process would have likely gone.

PS I worked as a software developer for six years and have written technical articles for print


Then you should be amazed as Ethelred (according to you) would be the first machine to pass the Turing test!
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jul 14, 2011
The Gultch is not important to the story. You are ignoring my posts. Rand could have never mentioned the hide out, but instead had them do menial jobs (actually that's what Galt was doing on the outside),.. and still made the core point. That Rand didn't is not relavent to her political philosophy. You'll never get it. Arguing with a lefty is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jul 14, 2011
You are clearly delusional on economics and since you got your idiot ideas from the books that is ample evidence that the books are grossly incompetent on economics.

Can you be specific as I asked previously?

I commenting on Frank misrepresentation of Rand's book. My personal opinion is she is idealistic however, the fundamental principals are sound. I have not commented on her "objectivism" philosophy.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
Further , I can not continue discussion with Ethelred
Because you can't manage the simplest of logic.

ignorant of the book,
I am not ignorant about Rand and I have seen YOU and other fans exhibit a total disconnect from reality.

Not fiction. That is the most idiotic thing I have seen someone say about Atlas Jerked. Of course its fiction. Rand wrote both sides of the conflict. The economy followed her fantasies, the sociopaths behaved the way she wanted them to. The government acted exactly as she wanted. You are like the Gordy Dickson fan that thought the heroes of his military SF had brilliant tactics. As Gordy pointed out, he wrote both sides of the battles.

Atlas Jerked is FICTION. It isn't real. Nothing you have said has shown any reality in it.>>
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (77) Jul 14, 2011
if I had read the book, by the very act of disagreeing with it, Noumenon would have been convinced I had not read it. "How could anyone disagree with Rand actually having read her,"


Nice liberal fuzzy logic. So had you done something you didn't do I would would have been wrong anyway, so on that basis, even though you didn't do it and I was right that you didn't, I don't deserve to be right about it (?).

Where you are wrong here is that we wouldn't have been arguing about misrepresentations, we would have been arguing about redistribution, entitlement mentality, big government, verses more conservative principals,.. that is, if you were honest and understood at minimum Rands core point. So yes there may still have been an disussion but it would be of substance.
Ethelred
3.7 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
and is arguing merely for sport,
Mostly because I noticed that you were exhibiting extremely bad logic and were lying about Frank's position. Otherwise I wouldn't have bothered posting. Then you started lying about what I said. Haven't admitted you got it wrong either.

and I must say pretty childish.
Of course you have to say that. I won't let you distort what I say so you have to engage in pure nonsense.

PS I worked as a software developer for six years
I hope I am not using anything you wrote. Your logic on this thread is nonexistent.

so more clueless child banter from you.
More lies from you. I showed what wasn't logical in your posts and you haven't been able to show I was wrong.

Ethelred
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2011
Can you be specific as I asked previously?
I was. You simply don't understand anything you didn't get from Rand.

I commenting on Frank misrepresentation of Rand's book.
And I commented on you misrepresenting Frank.

My personal opinion is she is idealistic
So was Karl Marx. They are both full of shit.

the fundamental principals are sound.
No. They are based on humans not acting like humans. Exactly like Marx.

that is, if you were honest and understood at minimum Rands core point.
I understand it. It's crap.

Further , I can not continue discussion with Ethelred
Hmmm. Another disconnect from reality.

Ethelred
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jul 14, 2011
Yes, Ethelred, Rand controlled both sides of the book, which is why when you ask MY opinion of her I said she was idealistic. Her point was to convey conservative and capitalistic principals which OBVIOUSLY are an existent, relavent and legitimate ideology,.. as contrasted with big government social engineering, which is also real and a legitimate ideology. She argues for the former as do I.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Jul 14, 2011
I see Ethelred is now arguing with each letter I post.

Please point out to me "once more" how it is that I lied or misrepresented Frank. How I made a illogical statement. Present the statement in question and a clear explanation of the lie or logical fallacy.

My entire purpose was to expose Frank for having never read a book he was in essence giving a review of. This is fraud and yet IT never phased you Ethelred, hmmmm.

I may be mistaken but I don't lie nor try to purposely misrepresent authors or posters.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Jul 14, 2011
I understand it. It's crap.

What about her ideas are crap Ethelred? Be specific. Just saying someone is crap or illogical is mere meaningles blather,.. a subjective impression... not a basis on which to have a discussion. How, in what way,.. etc
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2011
Yes, Ethelred, Rand controlled both sides of the book
Yet you said it wasn't fiction. Which was nonsense at best.

why when you ask MY opinion
Pretty sure I didn't do that.

I said she was idealistic.
So was Karl Marx.

which OBVIOUSLY are an existent, relevant and legitimate ideology,.
They are obviously ideology. Legitimacy is something else. Crap like Marx and Rand is not legitimate since they both depend on people not acting like people.

as contrasted with big government social engineering
Which is more fantasy than reality. Then again it is government that got smoking to such a low level. And it got blacks the vote. And rather a lot of things where humans treated other humans like shit. Which is what is wrong about Marx and Rand. They both depend on people not treating people like shit.

She argues for the former as do I.
Then you both depend on humans not being humans.

Ethelred
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jul 14, 2011
how does ultra cheap energy cause money to have no value and thus make capitalism obsolete?

Where did I say that? Nowhere. Really this is like arguing with Dogbert and Johanness. You try to make up both sides of the discussion. I tend to notice thing like that.>>


You didn't say it, the guy you're defending said it,.. in fact this has been the main discussion theme. Have you even been paying attention?
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Jul 14, 2011
I never said Atlas Shrugged actually happened as a historic fact Ethelred,.. I said capitalism and conservative principals are existent and legitimate ideas.
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2011
Please point out to me "once more" how it is that I lied or misrepresented Frank.


I see Ethelred is now arguing with each letter I post.
Well that is false.

Frank for having never read a book he was in essence giving a review of.
That too is false. He was doing the same thing I am doing. Saying that its crap. Since there is so much talk about it. From people like YOU we don't have to read it to know there is a lot of crap in it. You give ample evidence.

This is fraud and yet IT never phased you Ethelred, hmmmm.
Since that was another misrepresentation of Frank it wasn't fraud on his part and there was nothing that should have phased me. I saw Frank playing the same game you were. Avoiding questions that neither of you felt like answering. You have also been avoiding answers you don't want to admit have been given.>>
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Jul 14, 2011
Egoism and individualism is what she propounded as not evil things, but entirely natural things. All the early political philosophers called it the state of nature,.. but in Rand it's not bad per say or animalistic, but rather a fact of nature. Capitalism simply operates according to this intrinsic survival mechanism and as a consequence is a powerful force. Collectivism and ad-hoc social engineering are unnatural in comparison. Lefties like Darwinism (as I do) but apply it when it's convenient.
rawa1
1.9 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2011
The cold fusion of hydrogen at nickel could make all these projects obsolete soon. Therefore, not everybody is completely happy from this finding. Even the egoism and individualism could become a brake of the further evolution.

http://www.youtub...vcU4iedQ
Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (10) Jul 14, 2011
What about her ideas are crap Ethelred?
Such as that one. I said what was crap multiple times. You evaded it multiple times. Humans aren't magically without conflict and they often treat each other badly. Any economic system without a government cannot work for long if at all.

How, in what way,.. etc
You could learn to read. By that I mean learn to read all the words instead of just the ones you want to see. After all I had already given the reason multiple times.

Ethelred
J-n
4.7 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
Capitalisim will FAIL without a strong social safety net, unless we immediately jail all those who have lost their jobs.

In capitalisim there will ALWAYS be winners and loosers. Unfortunately in a system without a safety net the loosers will revolt, crime will rise to a point of anarchy.

There will never be 100% employment (businesses don't want that, the higher the employment rate the more they have to pay their workers). There will always be people who are physically, mentally, or otherwise unable to work.

By saying that this is not true you are saying that if you and your kids were starving that you would not steal a loaf of bread, you would just sit there and watch them die.

In my opinion, those who advocate against all social programs, who are against any program that helps the poor, and who believe that businesses can solve our problems NOT Forward, Multi-Step thinkers.

If they were one would think they could see the probable outcomes of their ideas.
Ethelred
4.1 / 5 (13) Jul 14, 2011
I never said Atlas Shrugged actually happened as a historic fact Ethelred,
And I never said you did, which makes that another misrepresentation. I pointed out that you said it wasn't fiction.

The core point of Rands book is not fiction.
Its fiction. At best it is based on fictional nonexistent, never even to exist, people.

I said capitalism and conservative principals are existent and legitimate ideas.
That was a separate statement in a separate post and you are not using conservative principals. You are using radical libertarian principles because that is what Ann Rand was. There is nothing conservative about Atlas Jerked. Radicalism is the antithesis of conservatism.

Egoism and individualism is what she propounded as not evil things, but entirely natural things.
Opinion. We are a SOCIAL species, but we cheat a lot. And that is not opinion. Where did that evil remark come from?>>
J-n
5 / 5 (9) Jul 14, 2011
Collectivism and ad-hoc social engineering are unnatural in comparison.


So, family's are unnatural? Families are Collective, and we've been doing things that way from the beginning.

Ethelred
3.9 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2011
Capitalism simply operates according to this intrinsic survival mechanism and as a consequence is a powerful force.
It only functions if there are laws and those must have a government to run them AND humans are social animals so you are overstating individualism.

Collectivism and ad-hoc social engineering are unnatural in comparison.
That is utter bullshit. Human societies have engaged in both those things since we gained control of fire if not before. As social animals collectivism is as natural as competition.

Lefties like Darwinism (as I do) but apply it when it's convenient.
Social Darwinism is not Darwinism. It is an excuse for treating people like shit. Oddly it is a favorite of people that hate the whole idea of evolution.

Ethelred
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (75) Jul 14, 2011
In capitalisim there will ALWAYS be winners and loosers. Unfortunately in a system without a safety net the loosers will revolt, crime will rise to a point of anarchy.


This is why Rand's ideas are ludicrous. They deny the necessity of the safety net and try to do so from a moral position.

Radicalism is the antithesis of conservatism.


Ironic how many self identified conservatives are really radicals. Political labels are so meaningless outside of an academic setting. No one uses the same definitions and all time is spent quarreling over attaining favorable definitions for one's side. The actual point is rarely discussed.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (76) Jul 14, 2011
.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 14, 2011
Being anti-social engineering does not equate to being anti-government.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (75) Jul 14, 2011
Capitalisim will FAIL without a strong social safety net, unless we immediately jail all those who have lost their jobs.

In capitalisim there will ALWAYS be winners and loosers. Unfortunately in a system without a safety net the loosers will revolt, crime will rise to a point of anarchy.

There will never be 100% employment (businesses don't want that, the higher the employment rate the more they have to pay their workers). There will always be people who are physically, mentally, or otherwise unable to work.

By saying that this is not true you are saying that if you and your kids were starving that you would not steal a loaf of bread, you would just sit there and watch them die.

In my opinion, those who advocate against all social programs, who are against any program that helps the poor, and who believe that businesses can solve our problems NOT Forward, Multi-Step thinkers.


I agree with you here, we are in a society afterall. But too much left leaves us in debt.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 14, 2011
I meant to give j-n a five rather than a 4,... as he seems to be the only one (other than me obvoisly) posting actual content rather than argumentative nothingness.

I never said that I except Rand 'all the way',... I was defending her book which WAS misrepresented or at minimum criticized based on 3rd party distortions by someone who not only did not read it, but WOULDN'T read it on account of pre-existing bias. Free-energy being irrelevant to the point, thus not itself able to undermine her philosophy.

Atlas Shrugged did not get into the "Rand extremism" that some of you are spinning your wheels attacking, only capitalism and conservatism, as where I limited my posts. The discussion is about Rands book and an unfair critique of it,.. nothing more.
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2011
The US debt problem has very little to do with our social programs and everything to do with our War and Tax programs.

If we would not have gone to war with Iraq and did not give HUGE unneeded tax breaks to the most wealth in our country we would be in a MUCH better economic position. Unfortunately, there are those who believe even now that Trickle Down Econ is more than just a Scam and that going to war over oil is a good thing.

The real problem is that our current economic problems were created by the Republicans, inorder to dismantle social programs. Why not solve our budget problems by cutting from the Bloated military budget?

Where is most of our national debt from? Most agencies report that about 50% of our National Debt is directly from Military spending.

So where should our budgets be cut? Why NOT cut military spending? Who out there spends nearly as much as us?
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2011
I thank you for your support of my comments, but you must understand, I AM a socialist. I truly believe that a utopia is one where everyone has what they need and want, there is no scarcity of resources, no starvation, no prejudice, and people aren't constantly schemeing to have more "things" than their fellow man.

I wish for a time where we all understand that "to have" means someone must go without. To Share means we ALL benefit.

Just a point before someone says that innovation and creation would stop in a society as described above. I counter with Linux and all of the programs licenced under GPL.

If you could cure cancer, but knew you would never be paid for it, would you still cure cancer?

I know I would.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (11) Jul 14, 2011
I meant to give j-n a five rather than a 4,... as he seems to be the only one (other than me obvoisly) posting actual content
Like this you mean?
.
??
Noumenon
3.6 / 5 (73) Jul 14, 2011
I meant to give j-n a five rather than a 4,... as he seems to be the only one (other than me obvoisly) posting actual content
Like this you mean?
.
??


Lol well, that "." still made more sense than some of the posts above. No, I'm at work and had to bail on that post.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (59) Jul 14, 2011
@J-n, if you are an admitted socialist,.. we are probably light years apart wrt to role of government and politics,.. however, given your posts, I can see you are sincere, straightforward, honest, and not knee-jerk argumentative and therefore your opinion deserves same respect from me. You are someone I can talk rationally to.

Obviously I must disagree about the economy being solely republicans fault. The current deficit is several times higher than Bush's highest year,... and he did not even represent conservative ideals to well. Obama's stimulus plan is higher than all military spending in Iraq to date. These are facts.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 14, 2011
That we went into Iraq for oil is false, as we could never recoup the 700 billion spent there in cheaper oil, even if we are taking it for free, and we aren't.

It's debatable whether we should have gone into Iraq or not, even though democrats voted to do so. I can show logically that Bush did not misrepresent the danger of Saddam. In anycase I'm against nation building.

Why the housing crash? Was that republicans or the markets fault? I blame this squarely on democrats, and can explain. Bush also initially bragged about more minorities becoming home owners under his administration, so he's not free of blame, although he made written warnings several times.
J-n
5 / 5 (7) Jul 14, 2011
The stimulus plan did cost more than than the CURRENT costs for the war, though the war costs will not stop rising for quite some time, while the stimulus package was a one time cost.

Now, what did Obama do during his tenure so far to Cause the Economic problems? Or were these problems, starting and forming during the previous 8 years? Were the problems unknown before he came into office, or were they just brushed under the table until the next guy got into office?

The deficit is higher because of the tax cuts we gave out like candy during the bush administration. These tax cuts, which were suppoused to CREATE jobs (which never materilized)will over 10 years cost 3.7 Trillion, which is infact more than the Obama Stimulus plan.

Bush tax cuts resulted in a gain of no jobs, as far as anyone can tell.

the Obama Stimulus plan actually saved not only many jobs, but many people's homes. It sucks we had to do it, but it would have been worse without.

Leaving now, back tomorrow.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (59) Jul 14, 2011
It was in fact social engineering mentality that is fundamentally responsible for the housing bubble that in turn caused the economy to slow.

First you must accept the reality that the market is capitalistic, to get this explanation; a fact whether you like it or not. Bankers, and brokers are individuals acting on their clients behalf. They are doing what they have to do to make the greatest return on investment.

This mechanism exists as a working principal prior to Fannie Mae buying up sub-prime mortgages. This is an ad-hoc government institution, who's mere existence effectively functions as a sink to the flow of mortgages. No normal entity would do this except a democrat backed institution designed to get unqualified people into homes. So yes bankers gave loans out like candy because they knew they could package it up and unload it onto Fannie. This was known in advance by the social engineers as it was predicable. You can't give loans out to people who don't prove they can save.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (59) Jul 14, 2011
Obama had to extend the Bush cuts once so far. Yes, some on the far left characterize Bush tax cuts as a COST. Of course this is fundamentally a fallacy, because the money is NOT the governments to begin with. The people grant the government money to spend on necessities. If the gov spends too much the people expect tax cuts and or spending cuts, and vote accordingly. The last election saw conservatives taking a sweep.

The current debate is that the government must stop spending our we will end up like Greece.
Gawad
1 / 5 (2) Jul 14, 2011
I meant to give j-n a five rather than a 4,... as he seems to be the only one (other than me obvoisly) posting actual content
Like this you mean?
.
??


Hey, I gave him a 5 for that.

Just a guess, but, substituting a "." for whatever you posted that you would like to withdraw is pretty much the closest you can get to a delete during the 3 minute post-is-still-editable period...given that this board doesn't let you delete posts once you've hit "Submit".
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2011
The current deficit is several times higher than Bush's highest year,... and he did not even represent conservative ideals to well. Obama's stimulus plan is higher than all military spending in Iraq to date. These are facts.

Meh. Selective facts. The fact facts are more like this: the *economic* deficit occured under Bush, the fiscal deficit under Obama. But in essence Obama's fiscal deficit is merely putting numbers to Bushes. It's become an American cultural sickness called the Republicrat dance. And now, come August it threatens to engulf us all again, just like three years ago. Wow, has it been that long already? Seems like just yesterday...oh wait...
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (55) Jul 14, 2011
I meant to give j-n a five rather than a 4,... as he seems to be the only one (other than me obvoisly) posting actual content
Like this you mean?
.
??


Hey, I gave him a 5 for that.

Just a guess, but, substituting a "." for whatever you posted that you would like to withdraw is pretty much the closest you can get to a delete during the 3 minute post-is-still-editable period...given that this board doesn't let you delete posts once you've hit "Submit".

I explained above, I did not have time to make my post legible so I had to bail. At work I type on a iPhone. Why are you posting this?
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 14, 2011
The current deficit is several times higher than Bush's highest year,... and he did not even represent conservative ideals to well. Obama's stimulus plan is higher than all military spending in Iraq to date. These are facts.

Meh. Selective facts. The fact facts are more like this: the *economic* deficit occured under Bush, the fiscal deficit under Obama. But in essence Obama's fiscal deficit is merely putting numbers to Bushes. It's become an American cultural sickness called the Republicrat dance. And now, come August it threatens to engulf us all again, just like three years ago. Wow, has it been that long already? Seems like just yesterday...oh wait...


Reagan inherited a worse economy, but by this time in his presidency he accepted responsibility and turned it around. The bottom line is that you can only "blame Bush" for so long,... and that time is long over. Even if "it's Bushes fault", Obama's policies have been proven a failure.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (73) Jul 14, 2011
Reagan inherited a worse economy,


Untrue.

but by this time in his presidency he accepted responsibility and turned it around.


Actually it was Federal Reserve Chairman Paul Volcker, a Carter nominee, who turned the economy around. It's even known as the "Volcker Recovery."

Also by today's standards, I'm not even sure conservatives would consider Reagan conservative. The government grew quite substantially under Reagan's presidency.

On another note, no democrat would have ever dreamed of attempting something like Iran Contra. Against a democrat, that would have been a slam dunk impeachment, conviction, criminal indictment/conviction, and minimum life in prison. I have no doubt a democrat would have been prosecuted under the Constitution's treason clause.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2011
Reagan inherited a worse economy, but by this time in his presidency he accepted responsibility and turned it around. The bottom line is that you can only "blame Bush" for so long,... and that time is long over. Even if "it's Bushes fault", Obama's policies have been proven a failure.

All of them, eh? All fit for the bin? One sided much?

No. In some cases, Obama's policies have not even come into effect (so you can't know). In other's they have been effective in mitigating an economic downturn of massive proportions. In yet others we simply have no clue as to whether they would be effective or not because his policies have been watered down, sabotaged or torpedoed by the Party of No. In some cases they have been less than stellar.

But what really is fast becoming proven as a failure is the process by which the American government operates.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Jul 15, 2011
Also by today's standards, I'm not even sure conservatives would consider Reagan conservative.

Absolutely true, given that Reagan actually increased taxes, some eleven times. What also increased during his reign was the debt, soaring from $700 billion to $3 trillion. So much for small government and spending cuts rhetoric. Not to mention his facilitation of the GFC by deregulating the banking sector.
Gawad
3.8 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2011
The current debate is that the government must stop spending our we will end up like Greece.

Hello. "the government must stop spending our we will end up like Greece" does not constitute debate.

Greece isn't in deep doodoo just because it *spends*. It's in deep doodoo because is spends more than it takes in. So it can tackle the problem in TWO ways: cut spending or increase tax revenue, or a combination of both. Apparently, being ideologically crippled, you see only one side of the equation. Note that massive tax fraud by its citizens and lack of enforcement on the governement's part is also a good part of the reason for Greece's woes.
Deesky
5 / 5 (2) Jul 15, 2011
Greece isn't in deep doodoo just because it *spends*. It's in deep doodoo because is spends more than it takes in. So it can tackle the problem in TWO ways: cut spending or increase tax revenue, or a combination of both.

There are problems with those two options. If they cut spending, then they get rioting in the streets as half the population are on overly generous govt. pensions. Option two also won't do much as the other half of the population doesn't pay any tax at all - it's a national institution!

What you're left with is selling off assets. It seems to me the only way out for Greece will be to seriously crack down on tax evasion and impose big fines and to reduce the government workforce, along with a change in the entitlement culture - basically what you said. However, I'm not optimistic.

The Italians are in similar boat, but at least their government appears to be united in cutting costs and making amends. If only they could weed out corruption, the Mafia...
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 15, 2011
Greece isn't in deep doodoo just because it *spends*. It's in deep doodoo because is spends more than it takes in.

Well jeez, obviously this is what I meant. This is the danger of left wingers making people dependent on government, through class warfare and the entitlement mentality. Liberals tend to weaken people in this way, then once economically responsible conservatives come in with austerity measures,.. they're politicized as the bad guys.

The Obama people actually want to spend more in a recession! The republicans I think understand that taxes are needed (not income),... but NOT before a balance budget law is in place and serious cuts are made.

Socialism does not work because the lower classes WILL just use the government (i.e. as mentioned, fraud) when they are perfectly capable of earning a living; This is intrinsic human nature I talked about above. Like wise the upper class WILL use tax loop holes, so they need to be closed.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 15, 2011
,.. When examined wrt egoism and individualism in a free country, behavior can be predicted, in all classes. This is why capitalism imo works so well*, it takes advantage of an a-priori motive force, rather than wasting force to suppress it, and instituting ad-hoc duck tape solutions to every social problem.

This is what scares most about socialism, every little societal problem that can be scientifically and statistically reduced through social engineering, WILL cause less rights to the individual. Conservatives like me view certain societal imperfections to be unavoidable costs to freedom.

*That the unemployment rate in normal economic circumstances runs around 5%, and in bad times around 9% shows remarkable success of the USA system.
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2011
The Obama people actually want to spend more in a recession!
As every administration has done since The Great Depression. It works if it doesn't go on too long and the money is spent in ways that generate jobs.

The republicans I think understand that taxes are needed (not income),
That is a bit contradictory and the Republicans are the ones that refused to allow the taxes to stay where they were so the do NOT understand that they are needed. Or if they do they deliberately sabotaged the country.

but NOT before a balance budget law is in place
They have made exactly ZERO effort to do that. They might have told a few lies I missed but they have started a Constitutional amendment to do that. The last time a law was passed it was overturned because it violated the separation of powers. You are talking from ignorance on this or you not have made that statement.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2011
Socialism does not work because the lower classes WILL just use the government
Lovely language there.Did you learn it from Rand? That was repulsive.

(i.e. as mentioned, fraud)
Are you referring to Enron? Or Goldman-Sacks. You know, the high class assholes that corrupted the nation. Real corruption that damages nations occurs amongst those with money and power. It doesn't have to happen that way but right now it is going that way. So far the only person that corrupted the system that has been prosecuted in Bernie Madoff.

they are perfectly capable of earning a living
Yes Bernie was but he chose to steal instead. 50 billion and that is minor in comparison the rest of the Banking corruption.

Like wise the upper class WILL use tax loop holes, so they need to be closed.
Or they can just bribe a few dozen Congressmen, mostly Republicans since they control the Congress, and get the taxes lowered for them. Exactly like happened.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
behavior can be predicted, in all classes.
Yes. Those that think they are the Predator Class will blame the powerless.

This is why capitalism imo works so well*,
Is that why Enron and Madoff and Goldman-Sacks did so much damage, they were working well? Capitalism can only function in a well regulated economy. Something the Republicans refused to do.

through social engineering
You really do believe that shit. You simply refuse to see the damage that the radical right did and is still doing.

conservatives like me view certain societal imperfections to be unavoidable costs to freedom.
Like people starving to death because they can't get jobs. That happened during the Great Depression and it still happens though these days it is JUST the mentally ill.

That the unemployment rate in normal economic circumstances runs around 5%,
Before the Radical Right wrecked the economy it was THREE percent.>>
Ethelred
4 / 5 (8) Jul 15, 2011
shows remarkable success of the USA system.
Right up to where the Radicals stopped regulation, allowed jobs to leave the country, wrecked the Saving and Loans, then this time around wrecked the housing market and the whole bloody financial system.

A balance is needed and we have not had a balanced country since the radical Right took over the Republican Party. Which is why I quit it.

Ethelred
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (59) Jul 15, 2011
Ethelred, go find something shiny to play with. I mean Madoff and Enron represent capitalism to you?
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 15, 2011
The same human nature that exists in a Madoff exists in lower class fraudulently using the government, neither are representative of a political philosophy as such.

We're speaking of principals and you USE every circumstantial perversion of those principals you can dig out of the ground as examples of failure of capitalism. You invoke extremism (unregulated laissez-fate) which I never mentioned. You maintain a caricature of capitalists so you are at least as bias as I am.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 15, 2011
Madoff went to jail, and many of the executives of Enron went to jail,.. they could only have went to jail if there was laws which were broken.... an existent law means a regulation. So neither of those examples are representative of capitalism, they are representative of degenerate side of human nature. The same exists on the other side of the economic scale,... except in much larger numbers. This is why do-gooder gov hand-outs can bankrupt nations, as we are seeing.
Javinator
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2011
Madoff went to jail, and many of the executives of Enron went to jail,.. they could only have went to jail if there was laws which were broken....


It would be more accurate to say they only went to jail because they were caught breaking laws.

So neither of those examples are representative of capitalism


I think the point is that if the laws weren't there and there was pure capitalism that they would not have gone to jail and would not have been punished for what our current society deems criminal. In a purely capitalist society they would have carried on without consequence.

The degenerate side of human nature is the reason pure capitalism (and most other pure -isms) can't work.
Shootist
2.2 / 5 (11) Jul 15, 2011
...one of a total of nine projects in the Innovative Approaches to Fusion programme of the USA Department of Energy


Why don't they publicize stuff like this? Afraid the luddites would see it as a waste of money instead of a good investment? I didn't think they had sense enough to look for alternative ways of achieving fusion power.



It is only a 'waste' of money when there isn't any money.

Using the police power of the Government to take property, from one to give to another, isn't theft, only because it's the government doing the taking.
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2011
A lot of stuff since i left, i hope i can cover it all...

Bankers, and brokers are individuals acting on their clients behalf. They are doing what they have to do to make the greatest return on investment.


This is only somewhat true, they are acting on their own behalf, doing what they have to to make the most commision as possible, if that means making greatest return on investment for clients that is what they do, if it means suggesting they put their money into a sock, thats what they do.
This was known in advance by the social engineers as it was predicable.


The problem with this is that it would be known by everyone then. I don't believe that the opposition to Fannie Mae would have not been aware of how it worked enough to not know this was comming as well, and instead of working to prevent or slow the problem they let it happen.
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2011
You can't give loans out to people who don't prove they can save.


Oddly enough how much you save has nothing to do with your credit score or worthiness no matter your income level.

Yes, some on the far left characterize Bush tax cuts as a COST.


We all pay taxes. We pay taxes according to our income, this is because the wealthy can afford to pay more of a % of their income without it being a burden (being able to afford the things one needs to live). The wealthy also do not gain their wealth in a bubble, they gain their wealth by using the services provided by the government.
If the gov spends too much the people expect tax cuts and or spending cuts, and vote accordingly


Many people expect that if the government spends too much that we will NOT get tax cuts, that some pork programs will be cut, and that taxes may even be raised.
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 15, 2011
The current debate is that the government must stop spending our we will end up like Greece.


We will only end up like Greece if we don't raise the debt ceiling, and we arent doing that just so the republicans can LOOK impressive among the less informed of their constitiuents, while in fact not raising the debt ceiling is doing more harm than anything.

When rupert murdoch pays less in taxes than his management staff, or when branson complains his taxes are too low, you know something is WRONG with the tax system.

The Obama people actually want to spend more in a recession! The republicans I think understand that taxes are needed (not income),... but NOT before a balance budget law is in place and serious cuts are made.


The obama people probally remember what happened during the last big recession and what got us out of the "Great Depression" it really was spending MORE, the New Deal programs, Social safety nets, and Jobs programs..
cont..
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2011
they were all instituted during the great depression. Spending is what got us out last time, not cutting programs for the poor.
Socialism does not work because the lower classes WILL just use the government (i.e. as mentioned, fraud) when they are perfectly capable of earning a living;


I definetly agree that fraud can be a problem (though MUCH less of a problem than most right wingers believe, welfare moms don't exist). I do disagree though that the whole system does not work because of this small problem. It's kinda like saying that the highway system does not work because people speed. Yes, some might speed, but there are things that can be done to prevent speeding, just as there are things that can be done to prevent fraud.

You also asume here that the lower classes don't want to move up, which is in direct contrast to what your (capatilasim) model says that everyone wants.

CONT...
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 15, 2011
Either this proves that capatilasim might not tell the full story "wrt egoisim and individualism in a free contry" or that the assumption that those in the lower income classes just want to use the system is wrong. You can't have both be right.

Like wise the upper class WILL use tax loop holes, so they need to be closed.


Why not close them up now? Why focus on punishing those who can't find work, while letting those who are suppoused to be "Creating Jobs" (the reason they got the big tax cuts) get away with tax fraud, and using semi-legal loopholes? As mentioned before, when a CEO of a giant company is paying less in taxes than management staff there is something wrong.

J-n
4.7 / 5 (7) Jul 15, 2011
That the unemployment rate in normal economic circumstances runs around 5%, and in bad times around 9% shows remarkable success of the USA system.


The unemployment rate you are quoting are just people that are collecting unemployment checks, not ALL people that can be employed that ARE unemployed. In certain areas of the country (Inner cities) there are NO jobs available, and with states and the federal gov reducing funding for mass-transport there is even less oppourtunity for many folks to get a job.

I Personally think engaging in Fusion research should be a national priority that is well funded, along with other areas of green tech, this is CERTAINLY a way we could grow our economy.

I apologize for the multi-posts, but i really wanted to respond to a lot of stuff. :(
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (73) Jul 15, 2011
I think the point is that if the laws weren't there and there was pure capitalism that they would not have gone to jail and would not have been punished for what our current society deems criminal. In a purely capitalist society they would have carried on without consequence.

The degenerate side of human nature is the reason pure capitalism (and most other pure -isms) can't work.


Why is this so hard for free market worshipers to understand?
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (58) Jul 15, 2011
We will only end up like Greece if we don't raise the debt ceiling, and we arent doing that just so the republicans can LOOK impressive among the less informed of their constitiuents, while in fact not raising the debt ceiling is doing more harm than anything.

This is a false characterization. The republicans know they must raise the ceiling. They want concrete spending cuts first.

When rupert murdoch pays less in taxes than his management staff, or when branson complains his taxes are too low, you know something is WRONG with the tax system.

Yes, as I mentioned above the loop holes should be closed, and I believe the republicans will agree to this. By the same token though, when the lower 50% income earners pay zero, you know something is WRONG with the tax system. We are talking % basis so they can pay something. A flat tax would make sense. Keep in mind who provides jobs,... you have to be careful wrt taxes during high unemployed.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jul 15, 2011
Socialism does not work because the lower classes WILL just use the government (i.e. as mentioned, fraud) when they are perfectly capable of earning a living;


I definetly agree that fraud can be a problem { }. I do disagree though that the whole system does not work because of this small problem. { } there are things that can be done to prevent fraud.


Well what I mean by fraud in this context is anyone receiving government assistance, grants, etc, that can work or make due without it. Any government program artificially supporting institutions that are unable to exist in the free market on their own merit. Anyone receiving SS above a certain income level, etc, etc. This is a colossal problem.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Jul 15, 2011
You also asume here that the lower classes don't want to move up, which is in direct contrast to what your (capatilasim) model says that everyone wants. Either this proves that capatilasim might not tell the full story "wrt egoisim and individualism in a free contry" or that the assumption that those in the lower income classes just want to use the system is wrong. You can't have both be right.


I don't make that assumption at all. What I say is that individuals act according to their own self interest,.. and not wrt for whats best for society as a whole. This is why socialist countries must control the masses, and in general operate 'against the grain'. What is a rational self interest to each person may differ. A self interest may be simply to take the path of least resistance, and not to compete in any way, go on welfare or disability unnecessarily, etc. The economy is not helped by these people.
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (55) Jul 15, 2011
Like wise the upper class WILL use tax loop holes, so they need to be closed.

Why not close them up now? Why focus on punishing those who can't find work, while letting those who are suppoused to be "Creating Jobs" (the reason they got the big tax cuts) get away with tax fraud

No free citizen is "SUPPOSED" to do anything for anyone else. Also, by saying "..why focus on 'punishing' those who can't find work", you are mischaracterizing the motive behind republicans, .. as if they seek to punish purposely. This is the main problem with politics today, each side misrepresents the others motives. I will respond if you rephrase this.
Noumenon
4.5 / 5 (54) Jul 15, 2011
I Personally think engaging in Fusion research should be a national priority that is well funded, along with other areas of green tech, this is CERTAINLY a way we could grow our economy.


I would even go so far as to say i'm all for a 'Manhattan' project for fusion.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2011
I Personally think engaging in Fusion research should be a national priority that is well funded, along with other areas of green tech, this is CERTAINLY a way we could grow our economy.


I would even go so far as to say i'm all for a 'Manhattan' project for fusion.
Everything in it's own time. The west can't end it's dependence on middle eastern oil until it is safe to end it's Influence there. And that won't be until those cultures which will overrun us if we don't resist them, are destroyed.

Obviously this won't be for some time. After the next war or 2 I would imagine. Either those cultures can destroy each other or the west will have to do it for them. Fight or die.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (75) Jul 15, 2011
The US debt problem has very little to do with our social programs and everything to do with our War and Tax programs.

I already showed that Obama's stimulous spending (which didn't work) was several times all money spent in Iraq. It's IS debatable whether we should have went into Iraq,.. but we did.
If we would not {} give HUGE unneeded tax breaks to the most wealthly in our country we would be in a MUCH better economic position.

I don't agree with this. The top 5% pay 60% of all tax revenue, AND they are the ones who create jobs directly and indirectly.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 15, 2011
-You want a better world then you will first have to deal with millions of people who think just like this guy:
http://www.youtub...a_player

-And consider that they would most likely rather kill you if they got the chance, than argue about it.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (76) Jul 15, 2011
The real problem is that our current economic problems were created by the Republicans, inorder to dismantle social programs.

Conspiratorial. I already explained above about the housing crash (lowered lending standards due to existence of a rug to sweep sub-primes under). The real problem is that the fifth largest gov budget expenditure is interest on the debt, and that we are $14 trillion is debt and growing.

FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (71) Jul 15, 2011
I already showed that Obama's stimulous spending (which didn't work) was several times all money spent in Iraq.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.
Ethelred
3.4 / 5 (7) Jul 16, 2011
Ethelred, go find something shiny to play with. I mean Madoff and Enron represent capitalism to you?
Are that incapable of understanding? They represent capitalism unbound by law. Which is what Ann Rand was pushing. I got that from you as well as others. YOU said the Gulch had no government. Hard to have a legal system without one.

So how about YOU piss off instead. You demanded that I post. Now you want me to go away. Next time remember that.

The same human nature that exists in a Madoff exists in lower class fraudulently using the government,
Yes and no and thats admitted that there assholes at the top of food chain. Yes SOME people in the lower class engage in fraud. I DON'T so can that bullshit. Yes economically I am in the lower class.

You write like Marx. All that class warfare shit.

neither are representative of a political philosophy as such.
I don't care one bit about 'political philosophy'.>>
Ethelred
3.6 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2011
Philosophy is what some people do when there is no evidence or they are unaware that is is possible to find evidence. Or they don't give a damn about evidence. All the examples were representative of REALITY which is what counts. Stupid ideological thinking is what allowed Madoff and Goldman-Sacks the to get away fraud. Funny how you ignored Goldman-Sachs.

We're speaking of principals
You are.

and you USE every circumstantial perversion of those principals
I use the reality of unregulated capitalism. What is your problem with dealing the real world?

examples of failure of capitalism.
Utterly false. They are failures of IDEOLOGY. The idea of not having regulation because it restrains the allegedly wondrous genius of greed.

You invoke extremism (unregulated laissez-fate)
No. I invoked REAL WORLD events. Things that really happened not some fantasy.>>
Ethelred
3.8 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2011
which I never mentioned.
Yes you did. You mentioned the main goddess of the Libertarians, Ann Rand. I decided that a touch of reality was needed since you were pretending that an alternate fantasy, Star Trek was somehow not fit to be compared with YOUR fantasy, Atlas Jerked.

You maintain a caricature of capitalists so you are at least as bias as I am.
Again no. I am trying to deal with reality not a fantasy that you trying to label as somehow more real than the one in Star Trek. Which was rubbish.

Keep in mind that YOU are the one that insisted on slandering everyone that is is even slightly less to the Radical side of Right than you. That was what earned you the ones and I didn't post till you whined about it.

If you had been less rude I wouldn't be on this thread.

Madoff went to jail, and many of the executives of Enron went to jail,
Yes they did. After they wrecked lives and the economy.>>
Ethelred
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2011
could only have went to jail if there was laws which were broken
Yes. They broke them BEFORE they wrecked the economy but the regulators refused to do their job because it was against their hands off Right Wing principles.

an existent law means a regulation
Only if it was enforced. The feds REFUSED to even look at Enron. They got exposed in a lawsuit. Regulation is NOT sending people to jail when its too late. It is making sure things don't get out of hand. They got of hand because the regulators didn't regulate.

So neither of those examples are representative of capitalism
Yes they were. They represented unregulated capitalism as espoused by the Radical Right AND Ann Rand.

except in much larger numbers
Smaller. Trillions were lost in the financial disaster. Funny how you still evaded Goldman-Sucks.

gov hand-outs can bankrupt nations
It is financial finagling that usually bankrupts nations. Same thing happened in the Great Depression.

Ethelred
Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Jul 16, 2011
They represent capitalism unbound by law. Which is what Ann Rand was pushing. I got that from you as well as others. YOU said the Gulch had no government. Hard to have a legal system without one.

Rand was not anti-government nearly to the existent you imply. The governments purpose is to protect citizens,.. form Madoff, etc. Also, there is the court system. As I tried to explain earlier I'm only discussing Atlas Shrugged, not Rand later idealistic philosophy. I admitted above she is idealistic,.. even William F. Buckley criticized her. IN THE BOOK, the key characters all become successful UNDER THE EXISTENCE OF A GOVERNMENT. ONLY once that government increasingly sought to control production and distribution on ad--hoc principals of "fairness" (a word Obama uses) , does the book begin it's salient theme.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jul 16, 2011
I already showed that Obama's stimulous spending (which didn't work) was several times all money spent in Iraq.


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

I thought you lefties would find that one difficult. As reported by the CBO.
Noumenon
4.2 / 5 (59) Jul 16, 2011
Stupid ideological thinking is what allowed Madoff and Goldman-Sacks the to get away fraud. Funny how you ignored Goldman-Sachs.

While I don't see a problem predicting sub-prime mortgage bubble and arranging to make money off it,.. there are always consequences in the free market place. I was against any and all bailouts. I blame the government here.

You claim to be non-philosophical and a realist wrt these things,.. but expect wall street to act morally or at least in accord with what's best for society as a whole. This is naive idealism. I on the other hand, while I do read philosophy, am a true realist, because I know how people WILL act, and put forth that socialism would required endless laws because it functions against this natural instinct of egoism, while capitalism takes advantage of it. This doesn't mean NO government,.. as it has a place in protecting people, not engineering or being a nanny state.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jul 16, 2011
Philosophy is what some people do when there is no evidence or they are unaware that is is possible to find evidence. Or they don't give a damn about evidence.

Ethelred, you're clearly a intelligent person. I would recommend you revisit your opinion of philosophy, which you express in past threads as well. There are many branches of philosophy including epistemology (obviously relavent to science), and even philosophy of physics. In quantum theory speculative interpretations wrt the underlying reality ARE philosophical .
In every area philosophy is simply hypotheses of observations. Science itself makes use of hypotheses all the time. Only, another step is taken which cannot be made for certain profound questions.

"Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories"-Wiki
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 16, 2011
Rand was not anti-government

Quite true. She could not understand how people could govern themselves. She was quite 'progressive' is this regard.
unregulated capitalism

This is an oxymoron as competition and customers regulate capitalism.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (57) Jul 16, 2011
The feds REFUSED to even look at Enron. {} Regulation is NOT sending people to jail when its too late. It is making sure things don't get out of hand. They got of hand because the regulators didn't regulate.....They represented unregulated capitalism as espoused by the Radical Right AND Ann Rand.


You're too deep in the trees and circumstantial events to see the point. Back away some if you want to be fair to someone like Rand, as she speaks of a Forrest not a particular tree at a particular time.

IN THE LONG RUN, a corporation which rips people off, or invest poorly will not last. People who obtain mortgages beyond their means, or refinance on speculation will fail as well. IN THE LONG RUN, more and more gov regulations and social engineering will only serve to dampen capitalism and so the economy. Collectivism like unions choked American car manufacturors. Unions should NOT be regulated, however, corporations should NOT be prevented from firing the lot.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (76) Jul 16, 2011
I think the point is that if the laws weren't there and there was pure capitalism that they would not have gone to jail {} In a purely capitalist society they would have carried on without consequence.

The degenerate side of human nature is the reason pure capitalism (and most other pure -isms) can't work.


Why is this so hard for free market worshipers to understand?

Because it misrepresents capitalism. In particular the statement "they would have carried on without consequence", is blatantly false and contradictory to capitalistic principals. Corporations existence is based on demand of their product. If there is no demand (because say people don't trust it or learned of rip-offs, or poor product, poor investment returns) the corporation collapses. It is self-regulating natural process of supply AND demand.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (11) Jul 16, 2011
Are that incapable of understanding? They represent capitalism unbound by law. Which is what Ann Rand was pushing. I got that from you as well as others. YOU said the Gulch had no government. Hard to have a legal system without one.
Laws are always defensive in nature. As such they invite the clever predator who waits patiently in the tall grass, watching the herd for any signs of weakness, and striking at a time and place of his own choosing. No defense is Impregnable when time is on the side of the attacker. This is the secret of the sphinx.

Knowing that this is Inevitable, laws can be designed to entice the predator to attack in a manner which most Benefits the herd. The old and the weak can be offered in order to protect what is truly vital to the future health of the herd.

Did I paraphrase Rand well enough?

Philosophy is poop.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (15) Jul 16, 2011
Laws are always defensive in nature.

Not in a Regulatory State.

It was a competitor of Madoff that for years tried to raise red flags to the SEC, which were promptly ignored for years.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (73) Jul 16, 2011
At least Madoff's competitor was able to eventually breach some nearly deaf ears. Under your ideal, there would be no ears to appeal to, nearly deaf or otherwise.

It's precisely the capitalist mythos that rich people are rich because they are better/smarter/not lazy that causes such phenomena. Who are you to challenge Madoff unless you can make off with more than him, since that is the measure of one's worth?
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (76) Jul 16, 2011
Absurd ignorant illogical smelly non-sense to hold Madoff up as a poster boy of capitalism, when clearly the man didn't operate on capitalistic principals,... he neither was able to compete (thus the fraud) nor did he survive.
ryggesogn2
2.2 / 5 (13) Jul 16, 2011
Under your ideal, there would be no ears to appeal to, nearly deaf or otherwise.

There would be all sorts of free market ways for an independent analysis of Madoff.
Madoff got away with his fraud for so long because he had an implicit govt guarantee: SEC hadn't shut him down AND he had good reputation in a highly regulated govt industry.
"The SEC's Inspector General, H. David Kotz, found that since 1992, there were six botched investigations of Madoff by the SEC, either through incompetent staff work or neglecting allegations of financial experts and whistle-blowers. At least some of the SEC investigators doubted whether Madoff was even trading."
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (10) Jul 16, 2011
There would be all sorts of free market ways for an independent analysis of Madoff.
Carbomb?
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (72) Jul 17, 2011
Absurd ignorant illogical smelly non-sense to hold Madoff up as a poster boy of capitalism, when clearly the man didn't operate on capitalistic principals,... he neither was able to compete (thus the fraud) nor did he survive.


No true capitalist.

http://en.wikiped...Scotsman
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2011
eventually breach some nearly deaf ears.

Yes, GOVERNMENT ears.
Madoff was not a capitalist and the Regulatory State failed spectacularly, again.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (16) Jul 17, 2011
"The credit ratings agencies are again angering governments, but this time they are taking on the big fish of the world economy."
http://www.reuter...20110717
It is interesting how market forces ultimately control governments.
Reminds me of the margarine commercial, "you can't fool Mother Nature".
Gawad
2.7 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2011
-->IN THE LONG RUN<--, a corporation which rips people off, or invest poorly will not last. People who obtain mortgages beyond their means, or refinance on speculation will fail as well. IN THE LONG RUN, more and more gov regulations and social engineering will only serve to dampen capitalism and so the economy.


Corporations existence is based on demand of their product. If there is no demand (because say people don't trust it or learned of rip-offs, or poor product, poor investment returns) the corporation collapses. It is self-regulating natural process of supply AND demand.

Bravo! So true, and quite well said. It self corrects! And hell, those consumers that get burned, have their lives turned into a shambles or are killed while the market corrects itself when corporations drift a little are nothing more than the collateral damage required to maintain paradise. At any rate, they are most likely to be the poor, like Eth, so its not like they matter anyway, right?
Noumenon
4.1 / 5 (60) Jul 18, 2011
Finally you get it. Those people are adults and are responsible for their own investments and the risk involved . Again you almost have to be an idiot to actually think that Madoff is representitive of a typical broker. He was a complete failure as a capitalist.

As already pointed out by ryggesogn2, THE GOV FAILED in the Madoff case,... understand,.. THE GOV FAILED. The government also FAILED to prevent the housing crash,.. in fact as I already demonstrated above somewhere in the pile, the gov set up the conditions which lead directly to the housing crash. But even if you can't understand that point,... the only one you need to understand is that in both cases THE GOV FAILED TO DO ANYTHING ON TIME,... thus by logic the government is not a viable solution to societies problems.
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (58) Jul 18, 2011
Further only in america can one have Internet service, computer, cell phone, flat panel, and still claim to be poor.

Some 40,000 people die every year in car crashes. Why isn't anyone doing anything to stop this! Answer; a) it's a free country. b) those people are solely responsible for the risk of getting into a car. c) it's not possible to maintain a free-society and have nothing bad happen to people at the same time. Even if all the mush-head social engineers got together and designed a society that fixed all the bed-wetting problems of the left,.. the end result of such an experiment would be that NO ONE would want to live there,.. especially the young who think they're liberals.

If the fact that the USA is $14 trillion in debt,... far from #1 in education despite the enormous experience,.. and that SS is mathematically untenable, doesn't convince you that there is no intrinsic motive for gov to be financially efficient, effective, and responsible, nothing will.
Gawad
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 18, 2011
Finally you get it.
But you still don't.

You bitch and moan about how Eth dwells on outlyers in the capitalist framework, and yet you exhibit exactly the same behaviour when you single out instances where government policy has failed and extrapolate this to all instances of government policy. (WTF?)

Don't you find it strange that the Canadian, German & CHINESE economies are all doing far better than yours in spite of having governments that are far more "socialist" than America? YOU ARE EMPIRICALLY *MISTAKEN*. You're just wrong. And again, too ideologically crippled by Rand Land to see where gvrnt regulation CAN do good or even save lives. Mandating that cars HAVE seatbelts is one example. But, no, if it comes from the public sector it MUST be bad. What brain rot. Consumers can be mislead wrt certain products unless they are *experts* in a given field. That's where protective regulation has it's place. Outside of that if people want to take risks it's up to them.
Gawad
2.7 / 5 (6) Jul 18, 2011
Further only in america can one have Internet service, computer, cell phone, flat panel, and still claim to be poor.

None of those has to cost a lot of money, so you'll have to find better examples. CRTs can't even be found on the market any more fur Xist's sake.

Some 40,000 people die every year in car crashes. Why isn't anyone doing anything to stop this!
Some people are. Cars that are almost impossible to crash are practiaclly a reality. It's now more of a legal issue than a technical one. I bet you're not going to like that, are you? A lot of those people that die in chrashes are KILLED BY SOMEONE ELSE.

But, like the typically Randlander, you AUTOMATICALLY DEFAULT to thinking that it's their fault because *they got into a car.* Well, O.k. Fair enough. But don't bitch and moan if the day comes when the car you buy is "driven" just by punching in a destination.

Or maybe you can start up a business in Somalia, with Marjon.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 18, 2011
Gawad, seat belts were in cars before the govt mandated them.
Govt always lags behind the market.
The privately funded IIHS conducts more rigorous car safety tests than the govt and companies respond to the results. Why? Profit.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (74) Jul 18, 2011
Gawad, seat belts were in cars before the govt mandated them.
Govt always lags behind the market.


You are either intensely dishonest or intensely ignorant. The fact that this so obviously doesn't matter is so obvious I can't believe that you just don't see it. You are intentionally manipulating facts and should be rebuked for it.
Gawad
3.7 / 5 (3) Jul 18, 2011
Gawad, seat belts were in cars before the govt mandated them.
Govt always lags behind the market.
The privately funded IIHS conducts more rigorous car safety tests than the govt and companies respond to the results. Why? Profit.

Well obviously! I didn't say the government *invented* seatbelts. That's what we NEED capitalism and enterpreneurs for: to provide us with all the good stuff for the government to regulate! Sheesh!
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (18) Jul 19, 2011
All you supporters of the Regulatory State seem to believe that without govt coercion to force compliance, seat belts would not have existed.
A new requirement is in the works to force all cars to have a rear view camera. Of course the govt doesn't pay for this, we do. And when it fails, how many will spend the hundreds of dollars to repair?
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Jul 19, 2011
Madoff was not a capitalist and the Regulatory State failed spectacularly, again.


Okay so the Regulations failed on the count of Madoff. How would he have been stopped if the regulators and regulations did not exist? I would like spesifics, in order to even understand your point of view, I will need more than "The market would have corrected".

Some 40,000 people die every year in car crashes. Why isn't anyone doing anything to stop this!


Actually the government IS doing things to stop accidents. Pulling over speeders, DUI laws, ETC are examples of how the Government acts to reduce and stop these things. No, it's not going to be perfect, but it is MUCH MUCH better than stopping pulling them over all together, which is effect what you are suggesting.
If the fact that the USA is $14 trillion in debt


Is a DIRECT result of our military actions that we have preformed without regard to cost, most of them by Republicans.
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
Gawad, seat belts were in cars before the govt mandated them.


Seatbelts were starting to become available in cars around 1958. Wisconsin passed their seatbelt laws in 1961.

that without govt coercion to force compliance, seat belts would not have existed.


Oh i dont think anyone would have said that, since you brought up the argument in the first place. I would say though that seatbelts would NOT have been standard equipment, nor would the 3 point seat belt be standard if it werent for the regulations.

I won't generalize. Ryggesogn2 and Noumenon, you seem to believe that without government regulation that the free market would correct it's self in all cases, and that all executives would act in a moral and honest manner. Unfortunately, we see constant examples of companies that break the rules we have and do what they can to screw customers out of whatever money they can. The free market, if capable of correcting by it's self, WOULD even in a regulatory state. CONT
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2011
J-n, your Regulatory State fails miserably to force ethical behavior. (Congress demanding ethics? What a joke!).
The free market, if capable of correcting by it's self, WOULD

It DOES, and HAS.
seatbelts would NOT have been standard equipment, [/q
Why not?
Okay so the Regulations failed on the count of Madoff. How would he have been stopped if the regulators and regulations did not exist?

Without the govt seal of approval that Madoff had, Madoff would have had to prove to investors he was trustworthy.
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
The regulations that are in place do not stop individuals from "regulating" the market as you say they can. Why is it that the market is not self regulating at this point? If it could do it, why is it not happening right now?? Please give spesifc examples, so i can REALLY understand your side, otherwise feel free to continue to ignore my questions.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 19, 2011
Govt regulations distort the market.
As I pointed out, Madoff had an implicit seal of approval from the SEC. After all, there are thousands of regulations in the industry so how can anyone be a crook?
Same with the mortgage industry. The govt implicitly guaranteed securitized mortgages.
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
Why not?


Because the consumers did not want to wear them. They felt they were a burden and even today 50 years after their introduction, people don't like wearing them.

Just like people still drive drunk. The free market won't be able to correct these things, unfortunately, only regulations will.

J-n, your Regulatory State fails miserably to force ethical behavior.


How does your wild west (no regulations) state bring ethical behavior? It actually encourages the opposite. At least with regulations people are held accountable for the laws they break.

When companies are allowed free regin they will do whatever they can do to make money. They show every day they are willing to bend and break the rules that are already in place, if there were no rules what would stop companies from doing ANYTHING they wanted?

If the free market can't regulate it's self right now, how do we expect it to regulate it's self with no rules?
J-n
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 19, 2011
Without the govt seal of approval that Madoff had, Madoff would have had to prove to investors he was trustworthy.


What seal of approval did he have? What governmental body approved of his actions? How would a person soliciting investments prove that they were trustworthy? By providing other investors with dividends?

After all, there are thousands of regulations in the industry so how can anyone be a crook?


There are thousands of laws regarding driving, how could there be anyone who drives badly? Your argument falls apart with the example you gave earlier. What is suppoused to stop drivers from driving while drunk? Fear of death? That is already in place, they still drive drunk.

Similarly the market forces that would prevent companies from lying, cheating, stealing from their customers are already in place, yet.. they still do it. Hence the regulations.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (14) Jul 19, 2011
Just like people still drive drunk. The free market won't be able to correct these things, unfortunately, only regulations will.

Laws don't stop people from breaking the law. Enforcing the law many help. But if you have thousands of laws and regulations, how do you prioritize?

You seem to confuse negative laws with positive regulations.

what would stop companies from doing ANYTHING they wanted?

Customers, competition and courts.

Free markets ARE self regulating NOW.

I suggest reading Bastiat's The Law if you are really serious to learn more.

ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 19, 2011
What seal of approval did he have? What governmental body approved of his actions?

SEC by failing to act.

Similarly the market forces that would prevent companies from lying, cheating, stealing from their customers are already in place, yet.. they still do it. Hence the regulations.

How do regulation stop lying?
I submit they increase the likelihood. Most people lie, intentionally or unintentionally when they fill out their tax forms.
With thousands of regulations, everyone violates at least one at some time making us all criminals. That's what a Regulatory State wants, leverage.
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
Customers, competition and courts.

Free markets ARE self regulating NOW.


Yet, in this self regulating market, we still have companies that cheat and steal from their customers. After which the companies continue on with little to no loss of business, profit, or investors.

If the market regulates it's self, and we don't need regulations to keep businesses from doing harm to individuals, the economy etc... why, even WITH regulations does it still happen? and HOW would it stop if we removed regulations?

You seem to confuse negative laws with positive regulations.


You seem to think that the labels we place on rules makes a difference on weather they are followed or not. It does not matter weather a rule is positive or negative, if the rule does not exist then it will not be followed.

You are advocating the removal of regulations and laws that seek to prevent action that harms individuals, and the economy as a whole.
J-n
4.3 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
SEC by failing to act.


How then in your model would potential investors be assured that who they are investing with is legit?

How do regulation stop lying?


They put in place punishments that seek to offset the reward gained by the lie in the first place. In your model what deters a large company from lying to a few thousand of their customers? What would happen if they did?

Most people lie, intentionally or unintentionally when they fill out their tax forms.


I dunno my taxes are pretty easy to figure out even with all the deductions for business expenses accounting for investments, deprecation, etc.. it's not all that tough.

That's what a Regulatory State wants, leverage.


Provide proof. Show me where the US government profits from this "leverage".
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
Laws don't stop people from breaking the law. Enforcing the law many help. But if you have thousands of laws and regulations, how do you prioritize?


This almost seems like you advocate the removal of ALL laws, not just Market regulations. That seems a bit extreme, but it is your words, care to elaborate? Or do you really believe that because there are many laws regarding individual behavior that it's impossible to prioritize, people will still commit crimes regardless if there are laws or not, and therefore we should throw out all laws?

Why would individuals be any different than a business?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 19, 2011
Show me where the US government profits from this "leverage".

Ever hear of plea bargins?
. It does not matter weather a rule is positive or negative,

Yes, it does.
'Progressives' use 'positive' law to engineer their utopian society. If you don't DO what the state wants, you break the 'positive' law.
Negative laws are designed to protect the individual's right to life, liberty and property. If you don't violate the rights of others, the state leaves you alone. See the difference?
I support the removal of 'positive' laws.
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
Ever hear of plea bargins?


Where people plea to a lesser crime so that it is eaiser for the prosecution to assure a conviction on some charge.

I'm really not sure how that results in the US government profiting from this Leverage. Try using your words and explaining your ideas or else why even bother commenting at all?

Yes, it does.
'Progressives' use 'positive' law to engineer their utopian society. If you don't DO what the state wants, you break the 'positive' law.
Negative laws are designed to protect the individual's right to life, liberty and property. If you don't violate the rights of others, the state leaves you alone. See the difference?
I support the removal of 'positive' laws.


Either way they are rules that people are suppoused to abide by, regardless of how they regulate the action they do regulate action. Again how does weather a rule is "Positive" or "Negative" affect weather they are followed or not?
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
All you supporters of the Regulatory State seem to believe that without govt coercion to force compliance, seat belts would not have existed.

Marjon, that's called a Strawman. FAIL.
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
I understand that i raise a lot of questions in my replies, yet you only answer a VERY select few, while i attempt to address every issue you bring up.

Are some of the issues i've brought up difficult to answer? Are they not worded in a way that you understand? Please don't tell me that you're like the YEC trolls and just cynically refuse to answer the questions because you know you have no good answer for them.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2011
J-n, try to understand the difference between 'positive' laws and negative laws.
I have provided references. It is left as an exercise for the student, if you are indeed a student and desire to learn.
Either way they are rules that people are suppoused to abide by,

Why are they supposed to? What is the motivation behind the law? To enable legal plunder? To force behavior the state wants?
In J-n world, ALL laws are good and must be enthusiastically obeyed?
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
J-n, try to understand the difference between 'positive' laws and negative laws.


You have provided refrences, and i've actually read them from the last time you suggested so. The problem is that it has no bering on weather they are followed or not. Additionally weather a law is followed or not does not determine if it should be in place or not. Lots of people drive drunk, but that does not mean we should remove that law.

Why are they supposed to?

Because it's the law.
What is the motivation behind the law?

Which law?
To enable legal plunder?

In some cases yes, our laws need to be rewritten. People who make billions on the backs of semi-slave labor should have to pay quite a bit in taxes to cover the costs to society that they produce. (Walmart employees don't get healthcare so the employees must rely on the government for that support, which is why executives at walmart should be taxed more)

ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 19, 2011
Ever wonder why health care costs so much?

The health care industry is heavily regulated and controlled by the govt. Doctors have a cartel protected by 50 state govts.
Additionally weather a law is followed or not does not determine if it should be in place or not.

Then why have it in place if not enforced or selectively enforced?
Unenforced laws weaken all laws.
People who make billions on the backs of semi-slave labor should have to pay quite a bit in taxes

If Wal-Mart pays higher taxes then it must charge everyone more for the products they sell or go out of business. IF Wal Mart goes out of business, how does that help the poor or increase the tax base?

Noumenon
4.4 / 5 (56) Jul 19, 2011
Further only in america can one have Internet service, computer, cell phone, flat panel, and still claim to be poor.


None of those has to cost a lot of money, so you'll have to find better examples. CRTs can't even be found on the market any more fur Xist's sake.


http://www.nation...mcintyre
Noumenon
4.3 / 5 (58) Jul 19, 2011
If the fact that the USA is $14 trillion in debt

Is a DIRECT result of our military actions that we have preformed without regard to cost, most of them by Republicans.


Factually vacuous non-sense. Military spending (which obviously is a necessity), is a small fraction of that sum. The interest alone to service that debt is half the military budget. As already mentioned Obama's nonmilitary spending is several times historic record. Try facts rather than liberal blather,
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
To force behavior the state wants?


Yes. The state does not want people murdering each other, which is why there are laws against it. In a democracy you are the state, because you vote. You control the democracy much more than you have control over capitalism, and businesses.

In J-n world, ALL laws are good and must be enthusiastically obeyed?


I would more put, in a civilized nation, everyone should follow the laws. If there are laws that you disagree with you should petition your government officials to have them changed.

Just because there is a law you disagree with does not mean you have the exclusive right to not follow it.

Still wondering why you don't actually respond to any of the questions i've raised.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (72) Jul 19, 2011
And when it fails, how many will spend the hundreds of dollars to repair?


It isn't mandated by law, yet, (neither are ABS, Traction Control, uhh are airbags even required now? if they are would you bitch about it...) and when/if it is, those who want to drive their cars legally will have their faulty cameras repaired.

Cut your seatbelts out an see what happens. Oh also just having typed that made me think that cars that predated seatbelts are STILL NOT required to have them. How long ago were seatbelts mandated? I'm sure you know all this since it outrages you so much. So if seatbelts that have been mandates for decades are not required in cars that predate the mandate, why would cameras be any different?

You are so dishonest or thick. Probably a combination of both.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (71) Jul 19, 2011
Just because there is a law you disagree with does not mean you have the exclusive right to not follow it.


Actually it does. Marjon is a 'sovereign citizen', so expect him to land on the local news having shot up the local supermarket for running out of his favorite beer.

Or maybe he'll blow up the nearest federal building a la McVeigh?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (17) Jul 19, 2011
You control the democracy much more than you have control over capitalism, and businesses.

This is wrong.
You have MORE control over a business than you do in a democracy.
You vote every time you patronize a business and if you don't like the product or service, you can choose not to give them your money.
In a democracy, your one vote every two years is one of millions. You have no choice but to follow the rules set by the majority regardless of how you voted.
However, because of 'progressivism' govts grant special favors to some businesses which deprive you of your freedom to choose because competition is prohibited or limited.

FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (70) Jul 19, 2011
You vote every time you patronize a business and if you don't like the product or service, you can choose not to give them your money.


This is BS. Elections take place in a finite amount of time, and install officers for a limited term.

Let's say for example Corporation X takes in a trillion dollars because everyone likes their business practices. Corporation X now has an order of magnitude more money than its nearest competitor. This money doesn't expire in a certain amount of time. There is no 'term'. So a 'vote' (dollar) given to a corporation a hundred years ago, could still be used by that corporation today.

What is to say the corporation of today has the same business practices as the corporation of a hundred years ago? If the person who had given them that 'vote' 100 years ago would know what their business practices would become and that that dollar would be used a 100 years from now, would he 'cast' that 'vote'?

The money/voting analogy is crap at best.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (72) Jul 19, 2011
However, because of 'progressivism' govts grant special favors to some businesses which deprive you of your freedom to choose because competition is prohibited or limited.


Without governments business will "grant special favors" to themselves. They are called cartels, monopolies, oligopolies, company stores/towns, indentured servants, slaves, cheap working condition, etc.

I'm going to shift my attention from arguing with Marjon to maybe the more reasonable here.

Is a society free without laws? No, of course not. There have to be some limits to what people can do to others. Why are markets any different? If anarchy is not a valid framework for a society, why is laissez-faire a valid framework for a market? It isn't.

Again Marjon, please kindly ignore the above paragraph because as you haven't moved to Somalia yet, you truly are not in favor of anarchy.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (17) Jul 19, 2011
A business must earn your vote every day to 'stay in office'.
A politician does not.

If your trillion dollar business stops selling products, stops trying to earn your vote, how long will they be in business?

J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
You vote every time you patronize a business and if you don't like the product or service, you can choose not to give them your money.


Yes, but it is completely up to them whether they care or not. Lets say, for instance, there is a company that fixes cars. You take your car there, and they fix the problem. They charge more than their estimate, and you cannot get your car back until they are paid. You've got to pay (cause there are no laws to stop them from charging more than they say) so you decide you won't go back there anymore. They've already got your money. They probally won't change their business practice because it does not matter, they've got your money. They'll still get business. Maybe not yours, but that's just fine.

J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
If your trillion dollar business stops selling products, stops trying to earn your vote, how long will they be in business?


If they're the only company selling said product, they'll be in business for a long long time, and make a crap-ton more money while doing it. All the while buying up all the competition before they have the chance to compete.

You don't really pay attention to the computer industry do you?
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (73) Jul 19, 2011
Check this out: http://www.wikinv...tory.jpg

Even when the government does exert its authority and breaks up a monopoly it's only a temporary measure. Regulation must be constant and adequate.
J-n
5 / 5 (6) Jul 19, 2011
Factually vacuous non-sense. Military spending (which obviously is a necessity), is a small fraction of that sum. The interest alone to service that debt is half the military budget. As already mentioned Obama's nonmilitary spending is several times historic record. Try facts rather than liberal blather,


Too bad you're wrong. Payments on military debt are not considered discressionary spending and are not included in the military's budget. They are a part of the "Non-Discressionary Spending" so can be set aside to make the budget look like we're not spending the MAJORITY of our money on the Military.

To many of us (who do not believe that we should be the world's police force) it is outlandish to state that the amount we spend on our military is at all reasonable. What military threats are we so worried about that we need to spend 1/2 of our budget on it every year?

Name one nation that poses a non-nuclear military threat to the united states.

Gawad
3.4 / 5 (5) Jul 19, 2011
@J-n:
Still wondering why you don't actually respond to any of the questions i've raised.
I'll let you in on a little secret that may help explain this. Some of the posters who've been on Physorg have concluded that Rygg/Marjon is actually a psychopath. That's what I've come to believe. And if you know anything about psycopathy you may see how this ties into his beliefs and behaviour. Don't be too surprised, by most estimates about 1% of the population exhibits this and Randian philosophy, with it's emphasis on individualism and profit motive, and it's uh, narcissistic side, would have particular appeal to such people. That's not to say that all Randians are psychopaths, but that psychopaths would tend to find its tenets particularly appealing.

So of course, like any psychopath worthy of the disorder, if reality is inconvienient, you can just ignore it and it will go away. After all THEY are the only reality that matters.
The rest is just piddling details, details.
ryggesogn2
2.4 / 5 (17) Jul 19, 2011
so can be set aside to make the budget look like we're not spending the MAJORITY of our money on the Military.

Where is your data to support your fantasies?
I have asked many times for data to support your claims. Nothing has been provided.
You don't really pay attention to the computer industry do you?

There are many choices in the computer industry and new competition every day.
They probally won't change their business practice because it does not matter, they've got your money. They'll still get business.

Ever hear of Angies List? Or the BBB? A bad reputation lasts quite a long time. So how will they be just fine?
The govt on the other hand can screw everyone all day everyday and you have no choice but to take it.
ryggesogn2
2.3 / 5 (18) Jul 19, 2011
When are you 'progressives' going to go after Apple?
"Apple Delivers Blowout Results as iPad Sales Nearly Triple"
After all, they have a 'monopoly' on their OS and hardware.
FrankHerbert
2 / 5 (74) Jul 19, 2011
They have neither a monopoly on the operating system market nor the hardware market. That's like saying McDonald's has a monopoly on McDonald's hamburgers... certainly true and entirely meaningless.

You might be able to argue they have a monopoly on the tablet pc and mp3 player markets, but I'm not certain this is true.

Personally I'd love to see the government knock Apple around just to see its fans blow a gasket.
Deesky
5 / 5 (3) Jul 20, 2011
You might be able to argue they have a monopoly on the tablet pc and mp3 player markets, but I'm not certain this is true.

No, it's not true as not only are there many other tablet and mp3 player makers in the market, but Apple's products command a premium over the competition, which goes against the definition of a monopoly.

They simply have more appealing products (in certain market segments) and customers are willing to pay more for their products. They're no more a monopoly than say BMW is.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 20, 2011
They have neither a monopoly on the operating system market nor the hardware market.

Niether did MS in the 90s but they were attacked by the govt.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2011
They have neither a monopoly on the operating system market nor the hardware market.

Niether did MS in the 90s but they were attacked by the govt.

They were "attacked" for having anti-competitive, predatory practices (in other words ANTI-CAPITALISTIC)in an effort to create a monopoly in the browser market.

Among other things, of leveraging their OS (through licence pricing or threatening to shut down hardware makers) to push out rival browser makers.

Some of us were paying attention, Marjon.

And BTW, this doesn't make Apple immune from the same treatment. They just haven't yet behaved in so egregious a manner.

Man, you're not even Libertarian. Adjudiaction of disputes between parties is one of the few basic reasons for minimal government in basic Libertarian political philosophy. Your such a right wing nut that even basic Libertarianism isn't good enough for you. Total Anarcho-capitalist. Insane, predatory, psychotic. Unreal.
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2011
Further only in america can one have Internet service, computer, cell phone, flat panel, and still claim to be poor.


None of those has to cost a lot of money, so you'll have to find better examples. CRTs can't even be found on the market any more fur Xist's sake.


http://www.nation...mcintyre


Wow, Numie, an xbox. A 360 or one of those older white ones? You're a riot. What's your point? That the "poor" aren't as poor as we think? Come on. I know damn well that the vast majority of the "poor" aren't living in abject misery unless they are also dealing with nasty drug habits, alcoholism or mental illness. Let me clue you in on a couple of things that seemed to go right over your head.

1. Being "poor" isn't about any single thing that you might own, it's about your total net worth.

2. To illustrate: economy cars of today are no longer the penalty boxes of just a generation ago. Cont....
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2011
2 (cont.) And I own a perfectly good DVD player that set me back all of 35$. And no, I'm not "poor". In other words, being "poor" in 21st Century North America can be a lot easier than being "poor" in NA in the 1950s, and yes, in no small part thanks to the corporations that have made electronic goods, appliances and comminucations (all media types) vastly more affordable in the last half-century.

(Note the trade off, however: a good part of those price drops came from offshoring manufacturing jobs to 3rd World countries thereby impoverishing a lot more North Americans)

3. And most important: I was being *sarcastic*. Mostly because Eth had just identified as being in "the lower classes" (no offense, man!). Come on, it doesn't take half a brain to realize that potentially dangerous corner cutting by companies can affect any consumer, poor, middle class or wealthy. E.g., cases involving motor vehicles, prescription drugs or the food supply chain.
Gawad
3 / 5 (2) Jul 20, 2011
4. One last point. (So, it was more than a couple.) Being poor can also be taken in a relative sense, in addition to having an absolute meaning of having less than X net worth. Hence, the lower economic classes being thought of as "poor" even though they may have a xbox. (Sheesh!) This ties back to my second point, in case it isn't obvious. That doesn't make the "poor" any less economically lower class, even if their standard of living is better than 30 yrs ago.

In any case, as was my point: it's not acceptable to throw *any* consumers under the bus for the sake of some Randian Utopia. Protective regulation and enforcement isn't (or shouldn't be) about trying to protect people from volontarily taking risks that affect them. It's about protecting people from risks they can't reasonably see, especially ones that result from attempts to "maximize profit", fraud and other unsavory practices. Enforceability or coverage doesn't have to be 100% for those regulations to have value.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 20, 2011
this doesn't make Apple immune from the same treatment. They just haven't yet behaved in so egregious a manner.

Apple's OS is proprietary.

The real story of MS is they were attacked because they didn't lobby DC like the other computer companies.
"For many years before the lawsuit, Microsoft had virtually no Washington "presence." It had a large office in the suburbs, mainly concerned with selling software to the government. Bill Gates resisted the notion that a software company needed to hire a lot of lobbyists and lawyers. He didn't want anything special from the government, except the freedom to build and sell software. If the government would leave him alone, he would leave the government alone."
http://www.latime...0.column
FrankHerbert
1.8 / 5 (70) Jul 20, 2011
You might be able to argue they have a monopoly on the tablet pc and mp3 player markets, but I'm not certain this is true.

No, it's not true as not only are there many other tablet and mp3 player makers in the market, but Apple's products command a premium over the competition, which goes against the definition of a monopoly.

They simply have more appealing products (in certain market segments) and customers are willing to pay more for their products. They're no more a monopoly than say BMW is.


I stand corrected.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 20, 2011
Apple's products command a premium over the competition, which goes against the definition of a monopoly.

The accusation against monopolies is they drive UP costs.
Now you are saying monopolies lower costs? What's wrong with lower costs?
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2011
Where is your data to support your fantasies?
I have asked many times for data to support your claims. Nothing has been provided.


In actual fact this is the FIRST time you've asked for clarification on this.

Here is just one resource that might help, it's got charts, explains how they do their numbers etc. I imagine it will not be good enough for you, so i suggest you do some of your own research, read into how much WWII cost, and if we've paid off that debt yet, read about the Veitnam War and it's costs, read about the "conflicts" we've had how much they cost.

Take a look at how much Social Security Tax brought in, and how much it cost this year.

http://www.warres...hart.htm
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2011
There are many choices in the computer industry and new competition every day.


Name 3 OS's that hold a 5 percent market share in the OS industry.

Ever hear of Angies List? Or the BBB? A bad reputation lasts quite a long time. So how will they be just fine?


Oh yeah they exist, but for example:
"Charter Communications is an American company providing cable television, high-speed Internet, and telephone services to more than 4.7 million customers in 25 states. By revenues, it is the fourth-largest cable operator in the United States, behind Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and Cox Communications."

...
"Better Business Bureau has posted a warning to consumers about the company:
"The Better Business Bureau has received numerous complaints regarding this cable, digital television, and high speed internet access provider. Complainants primarily allege that the firm had improper billing practices, referred customer bills to collection agencies in error,
CONT>>>
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2011
Apple's OS is proprietary.


Uh...ya. So? So is Photoshop and MS Windows and Office. What's wrong with proprietary software? Wait a minute....

What the...?

Are YOU, the MARJON, actually suggesting MS and Apple should GPL their OSes ?!?

OMFG! This just in: FOX news reports Hell hath frozen over!

Thaaaat's just so *wrong*!

The real story of MS is they were attacked because they didn't lobby DC like the other computer companies.
"For many years before the lawsuit, Microsoft had virtually no Washington "presence."


Ah, that's better. Whew! Dredging up the 'ol conspiracy theory. It's not like Netscape and PC manufacturers had anything to do with it. Man, you're a riot too!

I actually read Jackson's findings of fact. It didn't exactly paint MS in a flattering light. Never mind the performance of Gates and his cronies. They sounded like...Marjons. No, wait, Jackson was also part of the conspiracy! Must have read that on some right wing nut blog...
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2011
referred customer bills to collection agencies in error, provided poor customer service, used misleading advertising, provided defective internet or cable performance, used improper sales tactics or misrepresented the actual costs of installation and service, failed to properly install or maintain service, damaged customers' property, and failed to honor service appointments. "
Making matters worse, PCWorld also ranked Charter's cable Internet service as worst among 14 major Internet service providers.[24] In addition, Charter High-Speed is rated 19 out of 22 cable ISPs on dslreports.com, and Consumer Reports indicated in their February 2008 issue that Charter's television/Internet/telephone bundle collectively is the worst of all major national carriers.""

Worst of all national carriers, yet... 4th largest. Seems that the geographical monopoly this cable company has is keeping them from being affected by customer complaints.
J-n
5 / 5 (1) Jul 20, 2011
wrong post
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Jul 20, 2011
I have asked many times for data to support your claims. Nothing has been provided.
In actual fact this is the FIRST time you've asked for clarification on this.

Don't sweat it J-n, Marj is also a congenital liar. That comes with his pathology. He ignores the inconveiniant, misrepresents & lies, denies the in your face obvious, and wallows in fallacies, contradicting himself whenever convienent, essentially making it impossible to have a productive conversation with him. Which is why most posters stop taking him seriously after a while. With all that craziness rattling around in his head and no heart beating in his chest, it's generally better take whatever he writes with a big, big grain of salt.
J-n
4.6 / 5 (5) Jul 20, 2011
Don't sweat it J-n,


I understand. I am a glutton for punishment.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (15) Jul 20, 2011
"The pie chart below is the government view of the budget. This is a distortion of how our income tax dollars are spent because it includes Trust Funds (e.g., Social Security), and the expenses of past military spending are not distinguished from nonmilitary spending."
What? You don't believe the govt?
BTW, there is no trust fund. All taxes, including FICA and Medicare ARE dumped into the total budget, AND they are non-discretionary.
National defense is a Constitutional function of the federal govt. SS, Medicare, Education, etc. are not.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 20, 2011
Complain all you want about cable companies, but they all have a monopoly granted by the local govts.
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (15) Jul 20, 2011
"Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from the military; other groups estimate 50% to 60%. We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of the national debt would have been eliminated. For further explanation, please see box at bottom of page. "
What a surprise, they choose 80%.

"But in the less than three years Obama has been in office, the debt has increased from $10.6 trillion to $14.2 trillion, a $3.6 trillion increase in about 27 months. In other words, Obama is increasing the debt by $1.6 trillion per year, three times as fast as Bush."
http://www.nation...mes-bush
Where was that money spent? NOT defense.
J-n
4.6 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2011
Complain all you want about cable companies, but they all have a monopoly granted by the local govts.


Have you ever looked to see how many BBB "F" rated companies there are? How many are still in business, still do good business, despite poor service, and outright ripping off of customers.

With markets, these days, being world wide, there will always be individuals who do not have the time to check the reputation of every company they do business with to see if they rip off customers, have reliable products, charge hidden fees, do not honor their warranties, ETC ETC ETC

What you are suggesting would result in people spending more time checking the Quality of the vendors they purchase items from, and the items themselves than they would working to make the money to purchase the products.
In our current regulatory environment, the punishments that are in place for companies that break the rules, is usually enough to deter most companies from being dishonest.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 21, 2011
So J-n want to trust a govt agency, like the SEC to approve businesses?
If you are spending your money, YOU CHOOSE where to spend it.
Fools and their money are soon parted.
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2011
So J-n want to trust a govt agency, like the SEC to approve businesses?


Why would a government organization "Approve" of a business?
The SEC is a Regulatory group which means they are in existence to Police business activities.

Would you also say that the Police are approving of the Neo-Nazi groups they allow to engage in their first amendment rights of free speech?

Do the Police Approve of a murderer who gets away because budgets were slashed and there weren't enough investigators to solve the crime?

Given that the conservatives that have been in power have done whatever they can to strip organizations like the SEC of any power they once had to regulate business activities, or punish those who do break the rules that are in place, it does make it difficult to fully rely on the services they were intended to provide.

This, though, does not mean that the SEC and others are not needed and important.
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 21, 2011
Are you suggesting that because the SEC cannot prevent or punish all business related crime that we should do away with all the regulations and just let businesses do what they want?

Are you suggesting that businesses engage in fraud, and other crimes because the SEC exists?

If you are spending your money, YOU CHOOSE where to spend it.
Fools and their money are soon parted


Nice sentiment.
The reality of you know, the real world, means that the time that would be involved in researching every company that makes every piece of food you eat, every pen, paper, paperclip, folder, etc that you purchase through your job, every website you visit, and more importantly you would also need to intensely research every resource you use to do the investigations above. The time commitment would be impossible to keep up with.

Personally i don't want to have to do resarch to find out if the McDonalds i'm going to for lunch is a REAL McDonalds franchise, or just a knock-off.

J-n
4.7 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2011
Really though, have you gotten to the point where the only way you can defend your idea is by saying that i'm suggesting things that i'm clearly not? By Denying reality?

I have asked many questions of you during this discussion and most of them you have completely ignored. Is this because they are difficult? Inconvenient? Maybe you've just not thought about the question before and it's taking a little while to formulate the answer?

Please notice that in this entire discussion i've stayed away from any insults, questioning of character, motivations, I have not attempted to misrepresent your arguements, accussed you of things you have not done, When asked for proof i've provided websites that show where the numbers come from and give references to original materials, I have done my best to address every issue you've brought up.

This is in stark contrast to the way you have been pursuing this discussion. In all honesty this is disappointing.
J-n
5 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2011
I had hoped that through our discussion i could learn a little bit about your beliefs. How they're different than mine, and how you solve, what i precieve to be problems or difficulties in your argument. And through discussion provide the same informational opportunities to you.

Unfortunately, for some reason, you do not seem to be interested in a discussion of this nature and would prefer one of a more antagonistic nature.

Maybe this is another way of describing the differences between our two divergent ideas as well. Socalisim is one of co-operation, discussion, and free exchange if ideas, and searching for the truth. Un-regulated capatalisim is one of competiton, secrets, and doing whatever can be done to get one over on the other guy.

Whatever the reasons, I am disappointed in your ability to hold a normal adult conversation.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2011
Socalisim is one of co-operation, discussion, and free exchange if ideas, and searching for the truth.

I am sure the people in DPRK or Cuba or Venezuala would like to know this.
Did those who lived in the USSR or East Germany feel this way?
According to the German movie, "The Lives of Others", they were rewarded for spying on their neighbors. And they still have the files to prove it.
The first step in having a reasonable conversation is to agree on terminology. Socialism does nothing of what you assert.
Personally i don't want to have to do resarch to find out if the McDonalds i'm going to for lunch is a REAL McDonalds franchise, or just a knock-off.

You must not live in the USA. McDonald's is very aggressive in suing anyone that violates their brand.
ryggesogn2
2.8 / 5 (11) Jul 21, 2011
"Rampant copying also has hampered Beijing's efforts to attract technology industries because businesspeople say companies are reluctant to do high-level research in China or bring in advanced designs for fear of theft."
http://finance.ya...mp;.v=10
An example of what happens when private property rights are not protected.
FrankHerbert
1.9 / 5 (72) Jul 21, 2011
Don't come back until you read Locke's Second Treatise on Government, Marjon. It's obvious you either have never read it or read it with very poor attention as you don't understand the origin of property and its implications.

http://www.consti...reat.htm

Property rights invariably lead to governments. There are no property rights in anarchy. Also under anarchy, I'd be MORE than happy to come find you and demonstrate this to you personally.

"Rampant copying also has hampered Beijing's efforts to attract technology industries because businesspeople say companies are reluctant to do high-level research in China or bring in advanced designs for fear of theft."


That's why Foxconn is the world's largest electronics manufacturer, right?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (16) Jul 21, 2011
I'd be MORE than happy to come find you and demonstrate this to you personally.

Please do.

"Nature, or rather God, has bestowed upon every one
of us the right to defend his person, his liberty, and his
property, since these are the three constituent or preserving
elements of life; elements, each of which is rendered
complete by the others, and that cannot be understood
without them. For what are our faculties, but the extension
of our personality? and what is property, but an
extension of our faculties?
If every man has the right of defending, even by force,
his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men
have the right to combine together to extend, to organize
a common force to provide regularly for this defense."
"Collective right, then, has its principle, its reason for
existing, its lawfulness, in individual right; and the common
force cannot rationally have any other end..: Bastiat, The Law
If individuals can't steal, neither can a 'govt' of individuals.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2011
a number of men have the right to combine together to extend, to organize common force to provide regularly for this defense."

Marj, you cazy nutbar you, that leads directly to a form of government. And if it isn't a civil government that has control of this "defense" force thant it will be the military heirarcy of the force itself, and you end up with a military government. No "force" of any appriciable size, whether military or civilian (corporate or public) can run without a management chain of command. Otherwise, it quickly breaks down and will be vulnerable to better organized competitors. Those chains of command are an inevitable emergent phenomenon in any large groups, and they become defacto governments. It doesn't matter whether it's wolf packs or ant colonies, some kind of heirarchy will emerge.

Your crazy state-less anarcho-capitalist (arachno-capitalist?) ideas are self contradictory and go against nature, human and otherwise. You are as crazy as Marx was.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2011
Even if there are several defense forces (read: competing armies) in a common civilian territory, not only is this a recipe for disaster (Unregulated competion between armed bodies? You are insane.) but among the various types of industries subject to network effects--where size provieds an advantage, such as in physical infrastructure (communications, roads), software (OSes, social media), etc.--military power is probably the most suseptable. That means that in an unregulated (i.e., unprotected) market you will soon end up with a military monopoly *not subject to a civilian government*.

And what then? They are just going to play nice? Is that YOUR wannabe SOCIAL EXPERIMENT, Mr Swenson? I don't get it: Even somebody with just a couple of firing neurons would see this plan quickly leads to disaster. Unless you plan on being the surviving "defense force's" top dog? Is that your plan Marj? You wannabe Colonel Gaddafi?
ryggesogn2
2.5 / 5 (13) Jul 22, 2011
If individuals can't steal, why can govts? Bastiat calls it legal plunder and the 16th Amendment is just one example of how govts violate their limited role of protecting private property.

The income tax was a 'progressive' plan and those who voted to support were lied to. What a surprise!
Now the 'progressive' Regulatory State is an organized band of thugs that legally plunder at will instead of protecting everyone's property rights.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2011
If individuals can't steal, why can govts?
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Taxes...state theft...men with guns. Yadda, yadda. Heard it all before. Know what? Your ideas don't fix this, they make it worse. You want to talk about alternatives that have a hope in Hell and don't throw half of society's *individuals* under the bus? Fine. talk about an opt out taxation system (for everything except military and law enforcement) where you don't get to use any tax funded services you've opted out from (except perhaps on a cost effective pay-per use basis), because you can choose to perchase those services from government competitors. And the governement constitutionally has to allow fair competition with its own services. That way those who want to stick to non-governent market options *can* and not be penalized for it in the form of taxes (no double payments, i.e. taxes private services) and those who perfer the public option can go ahead with that.

The arachno-corporate BS is out to lunch.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (12) Jul 22, 2011
Yadda, yadda, yadda. Taxes...state theft...men with guns. Yadda, yadda. Heard it all before.


Why are you satisfied with legal plunder, aka socialism?

Churchill said it best: capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings and socialism is the equal sharing of misery.
Gawad
4 / 5 (4) Jul 22, 2011
Why are you satisfied with legal plunder, aka socialism?
Gee, I don't know Mr. Swenson, why don't you s'plain it to me? After all, you're the one who *works as a bureaucrat for the state government*, hypocrite.

Oh, wait, it must be for the same reason you support corporate fraud and military bloodbaths.

Idiot. Don't you ever tire of your stupid games?
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 22, 2011
Why are you satisfied with legal plunder, aka socialism?


I've always thought the plunder perputuated by most corporations on their workers and customers to be more of an issue than taxes.

According to IPS, American CEOs make 263 times the average compensation for American workers, up from the 30 to 1 ratio in the 1970s.


So are CEO's really doing 263 times the work as the average employee? No. CEO's are just figureheads, they do not generally produce product, increase sales, etc.. Often they dont even make the basic decisions that CEO's were responsible for making in the past, it gets offloaded to the lower managers.

So, legal plunder? Yes, i agree the plunder perpetuated by the leadership of many of america's businesses is downright obscene.
ryggesogn2
2.7 / 5 (14) Jul 22, 2011
I've always thought the plunder perputuated by most corporations on their workers and customers to be more of an issue than taxes.


Corporations can't FORCE anyone. They must persuade. Govts use FORCE.

So J-n prefers coercion instead of persuasion. Typical socialist: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, .....

you're the one who *works as a bureaucrat for the state government*, hypocrite.

Don't believe everything you read from SH. He is a known liar.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2011
CEO's are just figureheads, they do not generally produce product, increase sales,

Really?
The business world is rife with examples of how bad CEOs drove companies into the ground and how good CEOs expanded sales, jobs and profits.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (10) Jul 22, 2011
CEO's are just figureheads, they do not generally produce product, increase sales,

Really?
The business world is rife with examples of how bad CEOs drove companies into the ground and how good CEOs expanded sales, jobs and profits.
Leadership is quite important. Lincoln fired several generals before he found Grant.
Carter was a dismal failure. Obama is being compared to Carter.
Mit Romney led the Salt Lake City winter Olympics to a profit while most other Olympics bankrupt cities and countries.
Good CEOs are much more than figureheads.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (10) Jul 23, 2011
The Regulatory State:
"Clarence Darrow anticipated the prison nation that America is today a hundred years ago in his book Resist Not Evil. All areas of life have become part of the penal code, with an army of people operating as police, legislators, and the court system to enforce these laws through force and violence. But even Darrow wouldnt have dreamed that the unauthorized use of the Smokey Bear image, or of the slogan Give a Hoot, Dont Pollute can land a person in federal prison."
"The Amercian Bar Association cant even tally up the federal offenses exactly but believe the number exceeds 3,000. The ABAs report said the amount of individual citizen behavior now potentially subject to federal criminal control has increased in astonishing proportions in the last few decades."
"These crimes of the states making are sending 83,000 people a year to federal prison. "
http://blog.mises...n-today/
The 'progressive's' dream.
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2011
http://articles.c...M:HEALTH

45,000 deaths due to lack of health insurance.

" They determined that the uninsured have a 40 percent higher risk of death than those with private health insurance as a result of being unable to obtain necessary medical care. "

The Conservative Dream. Kill all the poor!
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2011
"The rise in avoidable deaths mirrors recent rises in NHS pay-outs for blunders. Around 6,000 cases go to court each year, and compensation to injured patients rose by 18 per cent last year, to £382million.

Read more: http://www.dailym...T8YJlOvs

6000 deaths/yr WITH national health insurance.

6000/60million = .01%
45000/300 million = .015%

Insurance doesn't appear to be a significant factor here.
J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2011
We're not talking about mistakes in healthcare, we're talking about he ability for patients to GET healthcare.

Apples to Apples please.

To compare your 6000/60million to avoidable deaths here in the us, i have a number from 2004

195,000/300million would be the USA's numbers.


So again. 45,000 DEAD not due to MISTAKES but due to Lack of CARE.

Why do you insist on being disingenuous? Or should i call it outright lying? It just shows you know your model fails in real life.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2011
The guy with the appendicitis HAD access to health care.
Everyone in the USA has ACCESS to health care. It is required by LAW that emergency rooms MUST take ALL regardless of ability to pay.
MA forces all to buy insurance. Now doctors are leaving the state and wait times are in months.
J-n
5 / 5 (4) Jul 25, 2011
It is required by LAW that emergency rooms MUST take ALL regardless of ability to pay.


That is actually NOT true. It's only Emergency rooms that take federal funding. More and more Emergency rooms are no longer taking federal funds.

Those that do still take patients, they do not treat conditions, they will diagnose, fix anything that is critical and send you on your way, telling you to go to your primary care physican for ongoing care.

For instance, you will NOT get cancer treatment from the emergency room, you will not get AIDS treatment in the emergency room, you will not get diabetis care from the Emergency room.

J-n
5 / 5 (5) Jul 25, 2011
These crimes of the states making are sending 83,000 people a year to federal prison.


So.. now you're blaming progressives for the Conservative battle cry of "Hard on Crime"? Next you'll be blaming progressives for subjugating the right of individuals to band together and bargain with their Employers.
ryggesogn2
3 / 5 (10) Jul 25, 2011
That depends upon the definition of crime does it not?

BTW, why do 'progressives' accept the high costs of health care? Only focusing in insurance does nothing to address the actual costs. It transfers the costs.
Maybe it is because it is the Regulatory State that is the driver of the costs and the 'progressives' collusion with doctors and drug companies to keep costs high.
ryggesogn2
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 25, 2011
"It may not prevent another bailout or protect consumers from dangerous financial products, but the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law -- now one year old -- has already benefited one group of people: the government officials who wrote and implemented the law before cashing out as lobbyists or consultants for Wall Street, hedge funds and big banks.

The top staff lawyers in charge of crafting the legislation in both chambers of Congress have both left Capitol Hill for K Street, as has a Securities and Exchange Commission staffer who helped implement the law. This is "private-sector job creation, Obama-style," as blogger Ira Stoll drolly notes.

The Great Wall Street Cashout is another example of how President Obama's agenda of bigger government -- and congressional Democrats' style of leaving the key details up to executive-branch regulators -- accelerates the revolving door and breeds crony capitalism.

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washington...ics/2011
hard2grep
1 / 5 (3) Aug 08, 2011
If I am thinking of the right project, this is a small-scale version originally based on principles incorporated by a tube type TV. This particular design has seen quite a few name changes but has been the closest thing to economical fusion for the last 10 or 15 years. yes fusion is already possible; it can be done with vacuum electronics and has been around a while.
Not very similar to a tube tv anymore though; the government has pumped money into this small scale plant each time it gets a new group...