Reality's comments

« First    « Previous     Comments 4161 - 4200 of 4,200     Last »

  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 16, 2:13pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
Land values are quite well known.


What is known is "tax assess value," which is subject to the owner's willingness to challenge it; i.e. a mere legal compromise that the involved parties are willing to settle for. I have bought houses with land for less than the land's assessed value alone in the last cycle bottom. The "well known" tax assess value magically went down to somewhat more reasonable level considering how little I paid, only when I brought in my lawyer. Seems to me a "well known" fixed value should not be dependent on whether a lawyer is brought in. In reality, land value change dramatically over time depending on interest rate and local economy. The "tax assess value" is best thought of as a fiction that the town needs in order to run a budget, so the local schools and town hall can stay open.


The important thing is that the tax must not change if someone builds a building or otherwise does something else productive with the land. The tax should be on the land alone, so as not to discourage productive activity.


Agree with you in theory, but in reality, bureaucracy tends to grow. It's very hard for land assessed value not to go up when the owners in the area make the neighborhood into a better neighborhood. Heck, most towns have been raising taxes just because declining interest rate has driven the market price of comparable land higher.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 16, 3:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

APOCALYPSEFUCKisShostikovitch says
Fuck you ALL! Landlords are entitled to suck every last dime from humanity to create dynastic wealth that gives their great great grandkids the FREE!dom to do nothing forever except fuck AMERICA! in the ass every harder every fucking year.


Average landlords have to compete against one another in order to fill their units. Also, plenty landlords went bust in places like Detroit and Baltimore. In the next housing crash, we will likely see another wave of wannabe landlords going bust.

Politicians are far more likely to form dynasties, but they are a different class of "landlords" further up the food chain/pyramid. That's why most prominent commercial families eventually go into politics, when their offsprings form too expensive habits to compete effectively in the relatively free market place. If not for political machination, most wealthy families in a relatively free market economy would go through "shirt-sleaves-to-shirt-sleaves in three generations" when their offspring grow up with silver spoon in their mouths and fail to compete effectively in the market place.

A relatively free and competitive market place is the most effective way of "spreading wealth around," far more effective and more productive than the usual political interventions that involve the dead weight of bureacracy. Some people are born into wealthier families than others, just like some people are born better looking than others or taller than others. One can only be happy by embracing what himself/herself is born with and making the best of one's own advantages.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 16, 5:40pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
Did they create the land? Did they buy the land from someone who created it


In most modern urban and suburban areas, the answers would be yes and yes:

1. Much of the land in many of the most expensive cities in the world (and the US) are results of land-fills. Someone did make the land from sub-tidal mud flats or river/lake bottoms. Even more land plots are results of hill removals and gully filling.

2. (Previous) owners of land created the land plots by subdividing larger plots at one time into smaller plots. The legal process and surveying involved were/are not small costs. IIRC, George Washington was a land surveyor by profession (and landlord later in his career).

3. Landlords (both current and previous ones) also create and preserve land in serviceable condition by keeping other people from dumping chemical waste and other trash onto the land (so they don't become like sidewalks and subway stations in SF, you now, marks of "public land" in urban area). At the minimum, land maintenance often involve mowing, vine/tree removal; In extreme cases, like George Washington's, that defense/maintenance action involved fighting off a foreign army. Wouldn't you say guards and night-watchmen as having rendered labor service? Likewise if the landlord has hired guards, watchman, lawyers or gardener to take care of his land.

4. Landlords (both previous and current) also paid the bulk of the local taxes to have sustained the local governments that have provided the local services.

5. Landholdings, whether already developed or waiting to be developed, is also a form of investment stock-holding, although that seems to be a very costly form of holding as most locales now have property tax on land, and often at premium rate if not having a house on it.

Seems to me, divided ownership into many landlords would be far better than a centralized government-landlord (with more severe rent-seeking power in the hands of bureaucrats, unchecked by another landlord right down the street), even for tenants looking for land to use.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 16, 5:48pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
You have to do something useful with the land, not simply own it, to make a profit in China. The system we have in the US is that mere ownership gives you the right to steal from the rest of the economy without doing anything useful. Just sucking the blood of people who are creative enough to build something.


Government bureaucrats control land use in China, and get far more rent-seeking profit from the developers simply because the land ownership is centralized. The blood sucking there is much worse than landlords in the US. Why else is a comparable apartment in Beijing, Shanghai or Hongkong much more expensive than one in NYC or SFBA, while the median labor income there are lower (significantly lower in some cases)? The builders there have to pay exorbitant land use fees that finance all the local governments and corruption.

What's interesting is that, private land ownership, i.e. dividing land ownership into many competing landowners, is the key to reducing rent-seeking via land monopoly.

Competition is the key to reducing rent-seeking, not centralized bureaucratic monopoly where the bureaucrats would be in an even stronger position to extract economic rent. Economic rent is not market rent per se, but monopolistic pricing power. What many see as unseemly rent-seeking in SFBA (and NYC) can be easily mitigated by relaxing building codes and allowing more supply; this is already happening in NYC: new constructions in recent years are collapsing rent price in that city.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 16, 6:35pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Booger says
None of the ads that I see on my phone are for condoms or whore houses, despite all the porn that I look at. What gives?


Condom makers and whore houses are not buying ads from Google, yet.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 16, 9:07pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
non-productive rent-seeking helps no one but the parasite, and harms whole countries. It is an evil we should eliminate.


It is important to remember in the process that we ought to avoid creating a new class of rent-seekers with even greater monopolistic pricing power (i.e. greater rent-seeking opportunity). Georgist may not consider land capital, but Communists certainly did, and they did take all land ownership under government and management under government bureaucrats (just as a Georgist policy would effectively result); the result of that centralized ownership was catastrophic: people stopped making improve/maintain to land, which in turn led to crop failures and mass starvation.

Even in American history, various utopian experiments in the 19th century and the original MayFlower Compact experience itself in the early 17th century showed that concentrated/collective land ownership must lead to disaster: as more than 50% of the MayFlower passengers starved to death in the first year as they farmed the land collectively. It was only after dividing up the land into small individual family plots that led to the first bumper crop harvest and Thanksgiving. People simply had zero incentive to improve collectively owned land. In fact, the nuclear family and agriculture (farming and herding animals) appeared in human history about the same time, around 10,000 years ago, perhaps because of precisely this new concept of private ownership, of land and of uterus content being from one single man instead of previously mistakenly thought of as being derived from all men who had ejaculated into that uterus. The private ownership created enormous incentive for each man to work the land, instead of focusing on humoring and conning the women for reproductive opportunity. Ever since then, every attempt at abolishing private/individual ownership led directly to reversion from civilization to primitivism; witness the modern urban ghetto phenomenon.

Empty lots generate tons of income for their parasitical owners simply by increasing in value due to the work of others near the land.


Let's not forget about opportunity cost. Leaving a SFBA lot empty for the last 30 years would have meant foregoing tons of rent income every year while having to pay property tax at the same time every year, not a winning strategy at all compared to building a house on the lot and renting it out (or parking the money in an index fund); holding an empty lot in Detroit for the last 30 years would have cost the owner almost the entire capital . . . the owner probably would have abandoned the empty lot a long time ago after skipping property tax.

It's easy to accuse the lottery winner of receiving unearned income, despite statistically buying lottery tickets is actually a losing game.

It would be a mistake to assume centralized government land management would result in better development than private/individual landownership; in fact, a centralized system would result in far greater rent-seeking by the government bureaucrats in charge, unchecked by a competing land owners just down the street.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 16, 9:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Rin says
This is Central Sq Cambridge, there's always something going on there.

How is this national news?

Now if it were in Harvard Sq ... then there would be some news!


This was much closer to Harvard Sq than to Central Sq. In fact, the background looks like north of Harvard Sq, towards Radcliffe campus (one of the "Seven Sisters" Women's Colleges, now part of Harvard) and Harvard Law School area. The naked man was a Harvard student, likely thanks to Affirmative Action! Affirmative Action is racism and evil writ large. Putting that kid in an environment that he is ill-suited has made him feel inadequate; now failure to punish adequately will turn him into a chronic criminal mind. Affirmative Action creates criminals just like parents who oil squeaky wheels produce spoiled brats.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 17, 5:34pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

dublin hillz says
The problem cannot be resolved until parasites' assets are confiscated, they are stripped of passport and citizenship and deported on a red eye flight to nicaragua.


Isn't that what the Russian/Soviets did in the early 1920's and Chinese commies did in the early 1950's after taking power? Except for skipping the flight, just executing all landlords while confiscating their land. The result in both countries (and every country that copied that "mass liquidation" method) was mass starvation: 20 million farmers starved to death in Soviet Union and over 50 million farmers starved to death in Maoist China . . . simply because the political bureaucrats replacing the landlords managed the land much worse, as all they cared about were personal political career (promotions) and food for themselves while starved the peasants through forcible confiscation of food that the previous landlords would never have tried. Blood sucking by bureaucrats turned out to be far worse than "blood sucking" by local landlords.

When the method was copied to Cambodia in the 1970's, fully 1/4 of that country's population died under the regime of Pol Pot, a "well educated" math teacher who turned socialist revolutionary.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 17, 6:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
Here's a bit more about the land value tax (LVT) in Hong Kong and Singapore:

The city-state Singapore, founded on Georgist tax principles, reached a tax rate on land of 16%. Hong Kong existed only on crown land, funding 4/5 of their budget with 2/5 of site Rent (Yu-Hung Hong, Landlines, 1999 March, Lincoln Inst., Cambridge, MA). The city uses land rent, not subsidy, to fund their new metro and in its suburbs grows much of its own food. Hong Kong enjoys low taxes, low prices, high investment, and often the highest per capita salaries. The city is often voted the world’s best city for business and the freest for residents.


https://blog.p2pfoundation.net/successfull-examples-of-land-value-tax-reforms/2011/02/05





Thanks for the link. Some of the content there however does not pass the smell test:

1. "in its suburbs grows much of its own food" is very misleading if not outright fraudulent. Hong Kong imports 95% of its food, as detailed in this link:
https://www.business-sweden.se/contentassets/fb4f875126144371b135b19a3c37ac6a/hong-kong-food-and-beverage-market-2016.pdf

2. "founded on Georgist tax principles, reached a tax rate on land of 16%" is once again very misleading. What Singapore and Hong Kong have is not a land tax or 15-16% land value tax; what they have is a Property Tax on current year rent revenue/income. For example, if a hypothetical unit rents for $1000/mo, that rent revenue is subject to Property Tax at 15% after a standard deduction of 20% (unless the owner choose to itemize cost for deduction); so, $1000 x (100 - 20)% x 15% = $120. So annual property tax would be $1440 on rental revenue of $12000. Considering that Hong Kong real estate routinely trade for 300x monthly rent or higher, the hypothetical property is likely trading for $300,000 or higher, the effective property tax in that case is 0.48%! Much much lower than just about any US city or town. Only Manhattan, Brooklyn and Cambridge (MA) come even close to that low rate in the sub-1% range. Most US cities and towns demand 2% if not higher! Never mind "Georgist tax principles," the prosperity of Singapore and Hong Kong is due to their (historically) smaller tax bite overall period (before their new welfare state policies in recent years).

3. The article also cited the case of Taiwan land reform after KMT regime arrived on the island. That case may have come close to "Georgist tax principle" at the time. However, in reality, it was a one-time looting against the 20 or less landlords that owned almost all the land on the island (and probably had close ties to the former Japanese colonial government and spoke Japanese). The landlords were given paper money for their land, and the paper money quickly inflated away in the subsequent decades (if the former landlords did not invest the money in industry). It was less "Georgist" than one-time looting against the local rich on an island that the new regime had just conquered (Taiwan having been reverted to China/KMT at the end of WWII, without referendum), and the KMT regime desperately needed money to sustain a large military to defend against the Communists on their tail, and the commies would have treated the landlords even worse (liquidating them all in Soviet/Stalinist style). The new owners of smaller plots worked the land harder but their taxes didn't go up in keeping with "Georgist tax principles." It's not even clear if the breaking up of farm land in Taiwan into smaller plots even made farming more productive in the long run . . . as mechanization of farming (like in the US) is not possible on those small lots. What brought prosperity to Taiwan was light industry and then tech industry, neither of which had much to do with the land reform.

Also, Hong Kong government had a long history of auctioning government land (the government owns all the land there by default) to the highest bidder (if we call that Georgist, as it did put the burden of running government almost entirely on land, before the introduction of income tax in the last decade or so). The result was extreme concentration of the construction/development industry, and extremely high housing price. Most people in Hong Kong have lived in tiny apartments for decades, while most of the land of the territory was left undeveloped. Some people there have lived almost their entire lives in pods not much bigger than one level of a bunk bed. If that kind of policy had been tried in the US, we'd have constant riots on our hands long before apartment sizes are reduced to that small.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 18, 1:31pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Mandy Lifeboats says
I know mine is (a parasite).

Raised our rent $200 (14% increase, Las Vegas) after 2 1/2 years of on time payments with no calls for anything.


Assuming the new lease will last a year, that's 14% increase over 3yrs, or less than 5% a year. My property tax and water bills (city/town monopolies) all have been rising at faster than 5% a year in the last few years. Even that particular landlord of yours is keeping rent increase at slower pace than what a government bureaucracy would have done.


Reason given by PM - rents are really going up, with a tone of amazement, slight glee.


As you can see, she can only raise rent when all her competitors are raising. That's why they are all rising at slower pace than what the town tax collectors and water departments are raising on them, effectively cushioning some of the price increase by those monopolies. If the government bureaucratic monopoly had been in charge of housing, they'd be raising rent even faster.




Place is not premium, by any stretch of the imagination. With a large desert scrub backyard and two pets, I might as well live outdoors with all the dirt dragged in. .


Moving outdoors or buying your own place or moving to a different landlord's house costing you less might just be 3 viable alternatives, and your move will also help keep rent down for other renters.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 18, 2:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Patrick says
SFace says
There will be no land value tax.


@SFace why not? Seems like an excellent idea to tax non-productive rent-seeking and stop taxing income and commerce.


What's the difference between sitting on land vs. being a city planner? The latter forcibly collects salary and pension from taxpayers, the former is a volunteering stakes-holder.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 27, 5:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Feux Follets says
Consider what it would take to actually have free will. You would need to be aware of all the factors that determine your thoughts and actions,


LOL! Is that a new defense/excuse at murder trial?
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 27, 5:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Having women-only sport event is Sexist!

Comes to think of it, Title-9 should enforce Uni-Sex sport in all events!
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 28, 6:31am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

clambo says
Of course, houses don't also pay dividends. You can rent a house but it's a bit of trouble and work.

To get the capital appreciation out of your house you must either 1. sell it 2. reverse mortgage it.

The capital appreciation stocks is superior, they are not taxed while you own them, while you pay property tax on the house that you didn't sell yet. If your stock pays dividends, you are taxed on this income of course.

I can make 25 free stock trades at Vanguard, thereafter $2 per trade. The sale of a house costs 6% or so and takes a long time.

You can sell a few shares of stock to raise cash. You can't sell a room/


Investment real estate has much higher dividend yield in the form of rent cash flow.

Investment real estate has the tax advantage of depreciation. An off-setting tax advantage in paper securities trading is not in stocks but in futures contracts. BTW, I do both; "25 free trades" wouldn't last a day for me.

Investment real estate allows for greater leverage than typical broker would allow in an individual's stock portfolio, so can take greater advantage of a bull run. To match the type of leverage typically allowed in real estate, you'd have to trade futures contracts (with attendant risk of being margin-assessed daily if not by the minute, unlike you can hold onto underwater real estate for months or years while collecting rent; markets can be irrational at times). OTOH, paper securities trading allows going short; renting someone else' house is going short in real estate, but that's very limited in portfolio size.

If you are a buy-and-holder, investment real estate makes sense. Paper securities trading allows faster re-positioning during turbulent market conditions and down turns . . . if you know what you are doing.

Stocks allow participation from far away, whether it's on the other side of the continental US or somewhere else in the world. Doing that via real estate would be REITS but those tend to have much lower yield than direct holdings in investment real estate.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 Apr 29, 1:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

clambo says
If you borrow capital to buy a rental property how is this making you a great yield?


If an apartment building's rental yield (after all expenses before depreciation) is 12%, borrowing cost is 4%, down payment 20% (5x leverage), the ROI is 8% x5 = 40%. If the building structure is worth 1M, it throws off another $37k/yr depreciation tax shelter, on a $200k initial investment! That's before counting property appreciation. There are no 40% or 20% dividend-yielding stocks (that are not about to go bankrupt and costing you the entire initial investment); stock brokerage accounts for individuals would typically only allow up to 2x leverage on overnight positions. Even if you get a portfolio-margin account (with $200k+ initial capital some brokers would allow PM) with higher margin allowance, you'd be facing margin check every night if not every minute in real time! If/when there is a flash crash or flash spike against you, you'd be screwed. That's very different from holding investment real estate and being able to sit out the temporary market irrationality so long as you pay tax and mortgage, which presumably is lower than rental income when occupancy rate is as low as 75%, which is really low.

For someone only having $1k, obviously buying investment real estate is not an option. I wouldn't recommend buying mutual fund either though at this point, after 9 years of bull market: someone putting in $1k now can easily lose $500 of that in the next 3 years. Save up at least $25-50k first, then decide whether you want to put that in investment real estate or in a trading account that won't lock you up after only 4 pairs of round-trip trades in a week. The primary advantage of security trading is high liquidity, so prepare to take advantage of the high liquidity and get out if your entry point is wrong.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 1, 6:50am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

LOL! And Native Americans before European arrival had a big committee meeting in the swamps that would later become DC, while being eaten alive by mosquitoes and malaria, decided that they'd use Wampum as currency, and called the technocrats entrusted with currency issuance "Wampanoag"! (/sarcasm)

It's amazing how the Left, who are supposed to be believers in Evolution, would keep coming up with those Intelligent Design myths, "solutions" and "models" when it comes to the study of human societies (misnomer "social sciences").

Money/currency obviously emerged out of the market place, usually starting as a highly portable item that appeals to women and can get sex out of them in return. Gold, silver, Wampum shells and other trinkets clearly belong to that category . . . as do all sorts of addictive substance like cigarette and alcohol that become money whenever a modern currency collapses into hyperinflation. Money is clearly a result of the Darwinian process.

Without the original market recognition of high value compact items, how would the technocrats even know in advance market acceptability of their newly invented currency of choice? How would they even be able to hire enforcers to enforce such currency? Fiat currencies like tally sticks, "palatial credit" and our paper money today have to be the aftermath of a credit bubble and collapse (resulting in perceived acute shortage of real market money, as previous credit bubbles built on imaginary/promised money supply that had not existed), with an already existing habit of transacting in the previous real market money (now being substituted by the fiat after the monetary collapse) and a habit of enforcers being paid previously with real market money. Let's not forget the very term "soldier" came from those who got paid in "solidus," a gold coin that was not debased while the dinar (silver coin in Roman civilian life) was rapidly debased to nothing; being paid with something that has real purchasing power is always critical to maintaining the loyalty of enforcers! You can't do that with a newly invented nothingness without semblance to something that previously existed and therefore has some purchasing power due to lingering habits.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 1, 11:56am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Money and coinage are two different concepts. Commodity money doesn't have to be coined; e.g. the Pound Sterling was originally literally a troy pound (about 373 grams in weight) of 92% fine silver, not any coin. Rulers typically made coins in order to charge a small "seigniorage" (the coin being slightly under-weight, to pay for the coining cost/privilege); eventually, that seigniorage gets larger and larger as percentage of the coin's value, debasing the coin, making its face value deviate farther and farther away from the commodity content value, essentially raising taxes via inflation and destroying economy in the process.

The original Pound Sterling as commodity money (not coined) was in widespread use starting in the 9th century around the market town of Troye (now in Northern France), as part of the economic recovery in Europe. That was some 500 years after the abandonment of Roman coins, and at least 3000 years after the invention of coins. People at that time seemed to understand that letting the government putting a stamp on something can only make it worse.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 1, 12:26pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

HEYYOU says
Stalin is not President of the U.S.
Too Bad! He would take care of all the Right wingnut Republicans
It's all on Trump & Republicans.
Are we MAGA yet?


Stalin was both a communist and a "right-wing" nationalist. He liquidated the entire cross-section of left-wing internationalists, whom he called "Trotskyists." Under Stalin's rule, to be a member of or even sympathetic to the "Left Opposition" (led by Trotsyky, Zinoviev and Kamanev) was literally a crime punishable by rape, torture and execution; millions were indeed raped, tortured and mass-murdered for exactly that!

It's not clear whether Hitler was to the right or to the left of Stalin, although the German Natioanal Socialist Workers' Party (Nazi) was certainly more liberal than Stalin's Communist Party of the Soviet Union, and murdered less people.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 1, 12:32pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

TwoScoopsOfDragonEnergy says
Reality says
Left Opposition


That's Left Deviationist, Comrade. Talk to your Student Adviser Komissar to learn the correct, non-bourgeois terminology.


LOL! Stalin called them that, but they themselves named their alliance as "Left-Opposition/Alliance." Before Stalin took power, Zinoviev and Kamanev were very much antagonistic to Trotsky; that conflict to a large degree accounted for Stalin's rise to power (besides his own party organizational work promoting his cronies)

BTW, just in case anyone thought Trotsky was a saintly martyr, he wasn't either; Trotsky was a mass murderer in his own right during the Russian Civil War. He was reluctant to seize absolute power after Lenin died using his command of the military. A totalitarian regime like those Marx-Leninist-Fascist regimes always result in the worst scum rising to the top, liquidating all their colleagues in the process. It's really stupid for anyone to advocate/support those blood-thirsty revolutionaries. What the Lenin-Trotsky-Zinoviev-Kamanev-Stalin cabal created was a regime that was literally hundreds of thousands of times worse than the "tyrannical Czar," as measured by political executions.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 2, 8:46am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Some entry-level jobs are meant for teens and young adults who are supposed to be still living at home.

Raising wage requirement for those jobs to a level where the workers can pay for an independent household would mean that most youths wouldn't be able to find a job before mutually self-defeating degree requirement instead of easy first-jobs! That is actually a very dangerous development: instead being in entry-level jobs and learning first-hand how to satisfy customers, they'd be stuck in "colleges" learning Cultural Marxist nonsense inflating their egos while making them unemployable due to lack of real skills and huge educational debt . . . those would be like tinder piling up for a firestorm, leading to massive social upheval.

Raskolnikov the unemployable law student in "Crime and Punishment" by Dostoyevsky was a classic on the intellectual mileu of pre-revolutionary Russia. In real history, Robspirre, the leader of French Revolutionary Terror, was student representative welcoming Louise XVI to royal inspection tour of Paris University (the world's most prestigious university at the time, like Harvard today) a decade or so before sentencing the King to beheading while destroying the entire French society and economy!
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 6, 11:09am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

1. There are only two types of government: Limited Government (which respects individual rights and therefore has regular peaceful power transitions) vs. (theoretically) Unlimited Government (which the leader can't afford to leave peacefully therefore attracts violent overthrow). "Democracy"/"Republic"/"Monarchy" are only the front/formality. Whereas US Article Of Confederation / Constitution (with the Bill of Rights) worked out a semblance of Limited Government, what Marx' "Dictatorship of the Proletariat" proposes is guaranteed to produce Unlimited Government, which of course only lasts a relatively short time till it is violently over-thrown, and attracts violent overthrow and mutual predatory behavior among the population during its existence. Marx' "Dilectic Materialism" is a religion serving his proposed Dictatorship in the same way that a traditional state religion would serve a theocracy . . . in fact, tend to work in the same sort of societies accustomed to promotion through "education"/brain-washing instead of social mobility via market competition.

2. The entire Marxian economics is based on obsolete superstition. Marx' economics was based on David Ricardo's Labor Theory of Value (i.e. a good's value is calculated from how much labor is put into it). After Marx published the first volume of his Das Kapital based on the previous Ricardian misconception, Austrian economist Carl Menger introduced the concept of Marginal Value and Subjective Value into the study of economics, finally explaining why an ounce of gold is far more valuable than an ounce of iron, despite iron being much more useful to society than gold, and why a liter of air is nearly worthless despite the crucial importance of air to human life: value is not calculated on the entirety of a commodity, but on the incremental unit of it: incremental liter of air is of little value because there are plenty liters of free air nearby. Menger also explained the difference between value vs. price, and the subjective nature of value/utility: two parties agreeing to a trade are actually not agreeing on the value of an item, but only the price point for carrying out the exchange: the seller deeming the value of the good as less than the agreed price but the buyer seeing the value of the good as being more than the agreed price; they have to differ from each (overlapping) sufficiently to cover transaction cost (tax, transportation, communication and marketing cost) in order for the transaction to take place at all. Because value is subjective in the newly updated economic understanding (unlike the previous Ricardian objective value system based on labor), Marx' entire theory on "Surplus Value of labor" was instantly obsolete. Marx was never able to finish subsequent volumes of Das Kapital due to this obvious intellectual contradiction. Engles later collated Marx' notes into publishing volume 2 and volume 3 after Marx' death, and offered prize to anyone who could round the square peg reconciling the contradiction, but to no avail.

3. Marx' linear progressive model of world economic history (from primitive society to slavery society to feudal society to capitalist society, linearly one time as human history, and forward project to socialism and communism society as the "inevitable end state") is also obsolete superstition. Ancient Rome had insurance (for shipping, life and property), share-holding corporations, and banking (both merchant banking and investment banking) before even the 2nd Punic War (218BC); that's long before Marx' Feudal Stage in European history, in fact barely into his "Slavery Stage"; how can a Marxist explain all those advanced institutions/"super-structure" of "Capitalism Stage" exist in a "Slavery Stage" society more than 2000 years ago? They can't, according to Marxian Material Determinism. In reality, there are only two alternating phases of human society: one phase is when productivity growth far out-pacing the existing rent-seekers (usually government tax collectors and their sub-contractors), that's when ancient Roman capitalistic market economy and modern capitalistic market economy take place (as well as Hrappen capitalistic market economy some 1500 years before even ancient Romans in building a city-wide indoor plumbing system, which did not exist in western Europe (or even the world) after Roman collapse until nearly 1500 years later in 19th century); the other phase is productivity growth barely keeping up with existing the appetite of existing rent-seekers, that's both feudalism and socialist/communist state, often punctuated by wars and internal purges whenever productivity growth falls behind the appetite of existing rent seekers. The sophistication of a capitalistic market economy is what brings forth the market demand and organizational finesse to build city-wide indoor plumbing systems, every 1500 years or so in human history.

4. What Marxism advocates is actually primitivism. Abolishing private property ownership is essentially pushing the timeline back to before the original agricultural revolution 10,000 years ago, just before the very dawn of human civilization. Without private ownership, people would not work hard or invest in capital improvement (in land, seed storage or in flock of animal). Every time farming in common on a scale larger than family/clan scale, the result has been disaster. It's not just the 100+ million people that starved to death in the 20th century under communist regimes, but even the May Flower landing in Plymouth saw more than half its original population starving to death in the first year due to the policy to farm in communal common; subsequently they had to divide up the land into household plots, and what followed was a good harvest and the first Thanksgiving! What Marx dreamed of as "end state" communism may well have some unexpected predictive power to the individual unfortunately enough to be caught up in it: "to each his desire, and from each his ability" indeed becomes reality when a person dies: to each his desire (which is nil) and from each his ability (which is also nil). Communism is essentially a Death Cult.

5. One fascinating aspect of Marxism is its intrinsic self-contradiction: Marx' dilectic materialistic "scientific history" of human history postulates that communism will arrive, and can neither be delayed nor accelerated by individual human action; so why did he and his followers waste time on revolutionary activities then? My suspicion is that they were working for money and pussy. Marx was certainly very popular with women, who seem to have a penchant for worshiping the ostensibly powerful; serving a predestined-victorious revolution makes the unemployable-"intellectuals"/Taliban ("student" in local language) appear purposeful and potentially future-powerful. His material determinism was tantamount to religious revelation/promise in an allegedly atheistic age (French revolutionaries started enforcing atheism around the time when Marx was born); he knocked up his household maid while living with his wife and children. It wasn't clear how he (or Engles) was funded. In fact, most 19th century socialist/communist revolutionaries had no clear source of reliable income of their own. We know that Lenin was funded by German military intelligence and western bankers intent on overthrowing the existing Russian government. It wouldn't be surprising if Marx and his fellow socialist revolutionaries were "controlled opposition" / bought-and-paid-for-terrorists funded by big financial interests.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 7, 9:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

1. In a fiat money economy like ours, the government does not wait for tax-collection before spending money. It's the other way around: government spends money created out of thin air by the central bank; tax-collection only provides the cash-flow stream to provide interest payment on the "public debt" (i.e. identity fraud, money spent by politicians to buy votes while having the bills sent to children yet born) and (tax-collection) provides some degree of anchor for the value of the fiat money as everyone has to pay tax using it. The more tax is collected, the more the government will commandeer from the real economy and the deeper the government will go into debt. In fact, that was patently obvious during the Great Recession: major banks pressured the rich towns with high tax base and little debt to load up debt (as everyone else became reluctant to borrow) using some ridiculous metric such as "too low debt ratio" "not taking advantage of tax revenue." In other words, the government is simply an agency for generating interest income for major banks.

2. "Owned by all human race" is a counter-factual concept that comes naturally to people who have more "education"/academic experience than their exposure to market first-hand (which is to say, a large cross-section of people in a prosperous society where parents send their kids to school in hopes of getting a leg up on other people's kids, but in reality ruining a whole generation or more). Ownership is about exclusions (i.e. deciding what to do with the "owned" resource, among multiple competing alternatives); private ownership is about delegating responsibility to specific individuals. "Owned by the entire community" must always become profiteering by "leaders" while taken care of by nobody (i.e. privatizing profit while socializing cost, the worst kind of crony socialism; well, all socialism end up like that). If there is a natural resource (whether land or oil/mineral), the most effective way to benefit the community at large is letting whoever can develop it as quickly as possible at as low cost as possible. That's the logic behind $5 registration fee for any frontiersman to grab as much land as possible in Oklahoma in the 19th century: the beef and wheat the land-grabbing farmers can bring to market would benefit the people back east far more than any auction money the US Army could collect and bring back to the people in the east as welfare payment. The collection of tax and distribution of welfare is a very viscous process with 87+% internal loss in the bureaucratic process (every link in the bureaucracy is essentially a monopoly). By contrast, a competitive market can deliver the benefit of the additional new resource to people who have no direct contact with the new raw input resource much more efficiently: just by the downward price competition due to the increased supply of final products.

3. The path to reducing rent-seeking is increasing competition, not centralizing the collection of economic rent (taxation is the ultimate centralized collection of economic rent; to a large degree, the property tax system we have today is a form of tax-farming, with every "landlord" being a tenant / tax-farmer of the local government). As Romans discovered 2000+ years ago, tax-farming is far more efficient than a tax-collection bureaucracy paid by pre-set salary/pension.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 7, 9:44pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

The article's core argument is also a decade or two out-of-date. While the US may have had higher home ownership cost than our main competitors a decade or two ago, nowadays comparable residential homes in the US are less expensive and mortgage interest rate lower in the US than the vast majority of our main competitors, not just Britain, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea and much of Western Europe, but less expensive now than even China.

The areas rent-seeking against US workers being more severe compared other countries are medical cost and college education. Almost no other country requires monthly-rent sized medical insurance cost or house-mortgage sized college education cost.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 8, 9:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Feux Follets says
Marx was correct, it would seem, when he wrote that capitalism keeps the working class poor.


Wrong. Capitalistic market economy was what lifted Jewish survivors of the Holocaust, Irish immigrants fleeing famine, Italian immigrants fleeing poverty, Vietnamese/Korean/Chinese immigrants fleeing wars and poverty, and even black immigrants from Caribbean and Africa itself, out of poverty within a generation after arriving in the US. "Intersectional" identity politics and welfare state OTOH have condemned many native-born Americans to life on a new slave plantation / dependency.

Feux Follets says
He was also spot-on about capital’s inherent instability. There is some validity to the joke that “Marxists have predicted correctly 12 of the last three financial crises.”


Recession and the replacement of existing inefficient enterprises by new and more efficient enterprises are what make capitalistic market economy work! Socialistic central planning is what kept the eastern bloc making 1940's cars well into the 1980's, while those old car models had been replaced by much newer and more advanced models in the West. Guess what happened to the old models in the West? They were put through liquidation sales!

Feux Follets says
Marx’s reputation has made a startling comeback, however, at times in unexpected circles.


There is nothing unexpected about good-for-nothing academics and propaganda organs prostituting themselves promoting central planning and safe-guarding of entrenched monopoly/oligopolies. Marx himself and his fellow 19th century "revolutionaries" were classic examples of bought-and-paid-for Taliban ("student" in local language) terrorists of their time, just like Lenin was a stooge funded by German military intelligence and Western bankers.

When a society becomes prosperous with productivity growth far outpacing existing rent-seekers, it goes through the "Capitalistic Stage"; then parents send their kids to schools in hopes of their own kids gaining a leg up on other people's kids. Guess what happens in the schools? The kids get their egos massively enlarged, while being taught either useless/counter-factual knowledge or so many of them being taught the same thing that the market value of the knowledge they learn plummet! The kids would never be able to achieve the level of success/prosperity that they were misled to expect when entering the institutions of higher learning. When attending such institutions is expensive (priced by rent seekers), the graduating students are inevitably disappointed and/or have to prostitute them to whoever would pay them to commit "revolutionary" terrorism. It's no different from the Madrassas of today producing Talibans/ISIS terrorists, 19th century Russian universities churning out Raskolnikovs, Lenins and Stalins, 18th century French universities churning out Robspierres (followed by German universities churning out Marx and Engles). Back around 400BC, ancient Greek capitalistic market economy led to the original Academy and Plato's first utopia of a Communist State (ruled by the Philosopher King).

Capitalistic market economy success does produce its own grave diggers, but they are not the workers but the useless/unemployable intellectuals like Marx and Taliban ("students"), who are all too willing and eager to prostitute themselves to any/all half-baked "revolutionary" cause, usually funded by the top 0.01% in order to destroy the next 1-5%, so that the remaining 95-99% have far less choices but have to sell themselves to the top 0.01%.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 11, 11:58am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Rin says
Everyone should know that even if another few million Femi-Nazi voters, between Boston and DC, vote for Strap-On Hilly, she gets the SAME ELECTORAL COUNT.


LOL! Another few million Femi-Nazis with strap-on's will only turn the country even farther to the conservative side: the Femi-Nazi's with strap-on's don't breed, therefore taking themselves out of the gene pool and the polls in the next generation. That's the fundamental reason why the Left is dying; a demographic death.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 11, 12:14pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

LOL! Perhaps Yale should reserve some affirmative action slots to drug dealers in New Haven; then some of the local criminals will have the right to sleep in the common room of other students' dorm suites too.

Why stop Affirmative Action at race / low-academic performance / sloth only.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 14, 6:23am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

pkennedy says
It's a good way to collect taxes, and limits how much wealth an individual can obtain really. If you're taxed 2% of your net worth every year, it means you need to add at least 2% to your net worth every year, or you'll go down. It means people can't just sit on wealth and slowly live off it for generations, it needs to be constantly in motion.


Wealth is only a manifestation/form of Power that is potentially subject to market competition. There are other forms of Power that are heritable, such as being born into a political family like Bushes, Clintons and Kennedies. How do you suppose we can tax that form of inheritance? In a mature society, it usually takes more than one generation to build up significant power (whether via wealth, or via politics, or via military careers). Among all the paths to significant power (to be among the top 0.01%, or about 35,000 people in this country that directly influence legislation and enforcement of law; keep in mind there are only 600 or so people in the constitutionally mandated positions in the three branches of government, surrounded by an order of magnitude more staffers then another order of magnitude more of lobbyists and their clients), the wealth path through market competition is likely the most benign, and the only positive-sum path vs. both the other two paths (politics and military) being zero-sum to negative-sum, especially to the rest of the population.




Muslims have this as a tithe every year basically, where you add up your wealth and donate 2.5%. I thought it was a pretty good way to keep people from accumulating more wealth than they could earn in a year themselves.


As the many dozens of Muslim countries show, that system not only does not prevent the rise of the various hereditary princes (i.e. generational Power, having advanced via politics and military), but also prevents that highly concentrated power base from being challenged by the positive-sum competitive market place. The result is serfdom, which is the condition for most of human history since the arrival of civilization 10,000 years ago (before that was primitivism, living like wild animals in the jungle, lives being brutish and short). It's only the past 500 years starting in Western Europe (and for a few hundred years at a time in Ancient Rome and Ancient Greece) that humanity have witnessed relatively free societies thanks to (generational) social mobility via commerce, the only positive-sum game known to humanity besides reproduction itself.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 14, 6:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Hircus says
Parasitic king-of-the-hill behavior by rich people who use their generational money and power to maintain dominance by monopolizing a market probably isn't normally good for society as a whole. If they use their money for legit investments however, that seems good and might raise more boats than if that money was taxed away and used by govt.


"Parasitic king-of-the-hill behavior" by rich and/or POWERFUL people. If the generational social mobility via competitive market place is blocked, the only paths left will be via Politics and via Military (essentially revolutionary butchery and private armies loyal only to their commanders, who would then have to rely on their sons to safe-guard their old age, giving rise to actual Aristocracy).

The attempt to build generational POWER (wealth is only one manifestation of POWER, and a form that is subject to market competition unlike raw Political Power) is innate to human psyche, and reinforced by women's hypergamy in mating. Just look at the politicians who are born to politicians, and union bosses born to union bosses; heck even union members born to union members! A society is much better served when that biological/evolutionary drive is channeled through a relatively competitive market place instead via monopolistic politics and/or military. That's the difference between a relatively free (and liberal in the classical sense of the world) society vs. serfdom.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 14, 6:58am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

pkennedy says
The other point about generational wealth, just being born in the right spot is important. SF vs a city of 2,000. There are so many things that we take for granted. Even the mediocre don't realize how much worse it could be for them, had they been born just a few hundred miles away. 300 miles east of SF and you're prospects in life probably drop to zero.


What are you proposing as the big government solution to this "problem" of sheer luck? Taking all kids away and raise them in government-run orphanages to ensure "equal start"? Will the staffers' own children be "more equal" than others? How do you prevent pedophiles getting into that system when there are no parental oversight taking kids home every evening? You know, like the UN peacekeepers' infamy for being sexual predators.


There was a study done in denmark, which has about the most equal society possible and also the happiest, and in the study they found with all things equal, doctors produced doctors, cashiers produced cashiers and very little moved up or down.



1. Isn't that like serfdom? The blacksmith's son is a blacksmith, etc..

2. Are you sure you are not describing a society in stasis? Who will do the new jobs created by new technology? What happens to workers at obsolete industries? Without market pricing, how would you allocate labor and talent efficiently? What happens when the Cashiers are replaced by automatic checkouts? What happens when they have even more children as they have nothing to do while on welfare after being replaced by the machines? Sounds to me like one of those 20th century eastern bloc socialist utopia (where unemployment is 0% as government assigns jobs), which invariably turn into dystopia within a generation or two.

3. and you are against inheritance?


So what it comes down to is ensuring everyone at the ground level has the best life they can , while giving enough incentives for the rich to beat themselves up over becoming rich. I'm not talking about "free X" I'm talking about ensuring they lead a good work/life balance, with reduced stress levels and "putting in" the least number of hours to get their job done.


The best work/life balance in that proposed system is being the feudal lord inheriting power via politics (not subject to taxation): he can focus on sleeping with all the pretty girls of the land, while collecting taxes from the serfs in the name of being the manager / representative of the Divine / Marx / the People. Smart people in that kind of society will strive to kill each other to be the top dog, while the sub-120 IQ population will starve as their betters engage in the negative-sum game of politics and inevitable police-state instead of the positive-sum game of commerce.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 14, 9:18am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

pkennedy says
In reality, there isn't a problem. That's what it comes down to. There are liabilities that need to be covered, but they can be. The problem is, it's about raising taxes to pay for liabilities and spending that the voters (everyone) allowed to take place. It was spent, now it needs some paying, and so be it.


If I promised someone else your house, does that give them the right to kick you out of your house? If I promised someone else your kidney, does that give them the right to cut it out of you? If I promised a third party the house and kidney of your future children, does that give them the right to kick your future children out of their homes and take their kidneys? That is the crux of "public debt": an identity fraud, because it is a promise to be forced out of people who were not yet born or were too young to have voted when the promise was made. If someone is either stupid enough to believe a false promise or venal enough to invest in a mobster enterprise (say, buying weapons for the mobsters to rob people), his recourse has to be sought with the con man or the mobster, not the rest of the population.

pkennedy says
I'm not saying "keep it up!" but it's not some crippling problem. There are problems in this society, but aiming at the lowest income earners or aiming at the government all the time just creates a system where everyone starts to believe that crap and ignores the real problem. Rich aren't paying sufficient taxes, and are withdrawing far too much from society. It's a system that worked so well, and so efficiently, that they've done a great job. No question about it, but clearly the results aren't sustainable and we need to tweak the whole system. More money needs to go to the lower tiers, how it gets there is either via taxes or higher wages.


Only relatively free market choice by individuals spending their own money can direct money towards the production of goods and services that people want, raising living standards for everyone. Only a relatively free competitive market place can drive wages higher in real purchasing power terms. Raising taxes wouldn't direct money to the lower tiers, but only creating a new class of parasites living off the productive society, and this class of parasites deliver even less what the average people want while bidding up prices of everything the average people want without having to deliver anything in return. Besides, the bureaucrats created by higher taxes are not exactly in the "lower tiers" but new fat cats living at the expense of the rest of the society.

We can take a look at a simplified beef+chicken economy: if the bulk of the population can only afford $3/lb ground beef and $1.50/lb chicken thigh, the ranchers raising cattle making millions and chicken farmers raising chicken making millions while preferring $12/lb fillet mignon and $2.50/lb chicken breast are actually beneficial to the general population living off lower priced cuts: the high price the rich pay for the higher priced cuts make the raising of cattle and chicken viable and profitable while selling the lower-priced cuts at even lower prices. Taking away the incentives to raise more cattle and chicken (via taxation), and giving the money to the counter-productive bureaucrats getting in the way of production would only cause all the meats to become less affordable to everyone else, especially taking the ground beef away from people who could previously afford it: because every dollar that the bureaucrat spends, if his consumer basket is similar to the average person, is taking the good out of the basket of the average person; if any item in the bureaucrat' basket is similar to that of the rich, then the bureaucrat is taking away the incentive for the (market-produced) owner of capital to produce more.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 16, 5:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

1. The cited article clearly shows that it is the expected subsidy benefit from "affordable housing" that keeps the people in high cost of living area.

2. It's doubtful many of the lowest income people in a given area are even working at all (instead of receiving SSI/SSDI and other welfare subsidies, many via fraudulent claims), so the local job pay is irrelevant.

3. Free housing in SFBA from extended family (likely already in "affordable housing" units) is cheaper than housing in TX. You can't beat the price of "free."

4. Does anyone honestly believe they had enough belongings to move that would have cost $10k in moving expense to TX? when moving from previous location to the mother's living room? (no doors to sleep quarters)
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 17, 7:40pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

To answer TPB's original question, I will cite two analogies:

1. When Benjamin Franklin was asked what the founding fathers had created, he answered:"A Republic, if they can keep it."

2. When a child asks his parents "will I die someday?" The answer is yes.

However, staving off the eventual death and destruction for as long as possible (so long as doing so is still enjoyable) is a worthy fight, for each individual and for a society/civilization.

A society/civilization has a life cycle, just like an individual. This cycle started with the fragmented Europe, where various princedoms were more like landlords than governments, and people (especially merchants) could vote with their feet. Competition among prince-landlords kept the ancien-regimes (and attendant "free cities") relatively lean, so capital acummulation could take place even when technological progress was slow. This was analogous to Ancient Greek City States. Since late 19th and early 20th century, the cumulative productivity gains have enabled parents to send their kids to schools to have a leg up on other people's kids, massive growth of schools and bureaucracy (monopolies enforced by force) and global wars (fighting over the enforcement of bureaucratic monopolies); the analogous time period was the Pelopennesian Wars pitting massive alliances against each other, Plato's Academy, etc., eventually some Alexander will appear (historically he was a student of Aristotle, who was actually quite critical of Plato's communistic leanings), trying to conquer the entire known world. Romans eventually did it, and that was an utter disaster to the Mediterranean: trade/commerce/division of labor were replaced welfare/bureaucracy(including academic bureaucracy)/warfare to fight over the control of the bureaucracy. It didn't even matter plebian vs. patrician, the end result was the same: bigger centralized state that eventually destroys itself due to its own weight and inefficiency.

Massive stifling bureaucracy / communism is indeed the end-state in every cycle: death, when to each his desire (which is nothing in death) and from each his ability (which is also nothing in death). Only fools would want to bring that end-state sooner or celebrate its eventual arrival.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 17, 8:02pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Tenpoundbass says
Yes but the Paradox of a Communist America spured on by the Socialist Left.
Those voting for it, will be voting for the benefits side of it, those voting against will be defending themselves against Slavery to finance a Sloth class of shiftless able bodied fucknuts sitting on their asses waiting for the fruits of those that have to work to hand it over to entitlement
That's worth a lot more than most Democrat voters can afford to pay.


Agree. However, the dimwits voting for socialism would only be impoverishing themselves in the long run; e.g. "free college" means more pay for administrators and no jobs (due to high taxes) for graduates down the road; "free medicine" means waiting to die for the "beneficiary" while prompt high quality service to politicians and those who can pay "cash" (whatever form that eventually takes); "free housing" means subsidy to landlords (who are actually cheaper than officials in charge of public housing, as landlords have to compete against each other to a higher degree than bureaucrats in charge of cases have to); etc. etc..
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 17, 8:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
I'd rather live in a world where our politics was about finding ways to minimize the extent to which laziness sets in, to shiftless numbnuts, for example requiring work of some kind even if it's some sort of work that doesn't cause a well defined short term profit to some entity that exceeds the amount paid to the person. Politics could address that. Everyone wants dignity, and to hold their head up with pride that they contribute something to the world. If not, they can learn.


Let me rephrase it for you:

"I'd rather live in a world where our legalized armed robbery/protection racket was about finding ways to minimize the extent to which laziness sets in, to shiftless numbnuts, for example requiring work of some kind even if it's some sort of work that doesn't cause a well defined short term profit to some entity that exceeds the amount paid to the person. Organized armed robbery/protection racket could address that. Everyone wants dignity, and to hold their head up with pride that they contribute something to the world. If not, they can learn."

Where can we find those enforcers who don't need to be paid, fed, housed, clothed, or having their own kids going to expensive schools? Are you sure they don't deserve better pay, better food, better housing, better clothes and better education for their kids, than for people allegedly under their care? Who has the guns to enforce privileges anyway? Oh, right, those "officials" are anointed by the new god named "The People." It's the divine right of the clowns in official costumes!
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 17, 8:31pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

A competitive market place delivered internet and iPhone, whereas neither Soviet government nor Japanese government throwing tens of billions of dollars at computer technology produced anything useful.

Non-profits and Charities can serve people who are in need, and donors can pick and choose which charity to donate; even for-profit merchants and service providers deliver the real goods and services that people want, competitively (i.e. people can shop elsewhere if somewhere else does the same thing better) . . . whereas government bureaucrats are monopolistic, and fundamentally little different from the old mafia trick of forcibly collecting donations in the name of windows and orphans. Government bureaucrats consume 87+% of tax collected for welfare, whereas the alleged target recipients receive less than 13% of the budget.

BTW, Amazon (and Walmart, and other merchants and private sector service providers) has benefited far more Americans than welfare bureaucrats have. In fact, if not for the bureaucrats bidding up prices and taking resources away, the average American consumers would have benefited even more from Amazon, Walmart, and etc..
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 17, 8:41pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

marcus says
Reality says
anointed by the new god named "The People." It's the divine right of the clowns in the costumes of the officialdom!


So you don't believe that the people can elect leaders with good innovative ideas that can work if those ideas aren't some application of 1960s politics and economics onto 2150 America in a 2150 world /\?


Do you think iPhone would have been made if millions of consumers voted on drawings that can get past DNC and RNC? Instead of private/corporate funds controlled by Steve Jobs? Innovative ideas hit a very small number of minds first; that's why they are called geniuses! Haven't you heard the expression "a horse designed by a committee"? That's a committee of a dozen people; now try a committee of 350,000,000! People are only good at voting with their feet and voting with their own wallet. People suck at voting other people's wallet or "public purse." That's when you get "bridges to nowhere."

Mass voting precludes innovation; otherwise, the thing would already have been there.

Political leaders are not elected for their innovative ideas, but their ability to change their own proclamations to track polls.

Also, most government bureaucrats are in tenured positions, not subject to voting by public at all.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 18, 11:34am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote        

bob2356 says
Earth calling to space dweller. Look up arpanet sometime. The government funded and developed network that became the internet. Being ignorant of history doesn't mean it didn't happen.


Darpa was/is an organization of only about 100 people. It's not a research outfit, but more like a government-run hedge fund surveying what's in the market place and what type of research might be of critical importance to military therefore can be exclusively bought for the benefit of the defense department for a few years / decades. It's a little like National Inquirer buying some stories in order to keep exclusive rights to the stories (sometimes not to publish it!). The story/invention was out there or about to come out anyway.

What enabled internet as a system beneficial to the wide cross-section of society (instead of a mere intellectual curiosity in the ivory towers) was the wide availability of inexpensive personal computers and the phone network, both brought about by the market place. Neither the Soviets nor the Japanese were able to do that despite their governments spending far more money than the US government did in the 1980's on research into making more powerful computers. The soviets were obsessed with building super computers to calculate the "fair" price for every item based on how much labor going into it. The Japanese government just had money to burn and wanted the title of having the world's most powerful computers.

bob2356 says
Do you think IPhone,Ipad,Ipod would have made millions if government labs hadn't invented the touch screen? Or the military hadn't put up the GPS network? How many satellites did Apple put into space for it's IPhone customers?



The original iPhone did NOT have GPS receiver inside. Its location information came from triangulating cellphone towers. Yes, even the original iPhone made millions, proving your thesis false.

The US government/military put the GPS satellites into space in its role as a landlord, in competition against other landlord-goverments (such as that of the former Soviet Union), not in its capacity as "the government" providing GPS location service to the public. The government didn't make or sell any GPS receiver for civilian use.

The private sector did not launch any satellite during the Cold War because it was against the law for any private citizen to launch a space vehicle (until circa 1998, long after the GPS satellites were already in place and proven nearly a decade earlier during the First Gulf War).

Some government-sponsored hack invented an utterly impractical way of making a touch screen on a scope in the 1960's, and it didn't go anyway. It was the 1980's independent invention and marketing of devices made by private companies (including HP) that ushered in what we today know as useful touch screens. The government-apologists are essentially making the claim that Erik the Red discovered the New World 500 years before Columbus. Erik the Red had nothing to do with the massive explosion of commerce that came after Columbus' discovery of the New World. Heck, some ancient Greek inventor demo'd a steam boat in a bath tub, and Leonardo Da Vinci drew the sketches of a helicopter . . . only the stupid ivory tower academics would give the credit of inventing the Steam Engine to ancient Greeks 2500 years ago, and that of the functional/marketale helicopter to Leonardo Da Vinci 500 years ago.



Read The Entrepreneurial State, by Mariana Mazzucato for an increadibly well researched book about the dependence of industry on government spending and research.



It's not surprising to see another female author with a slave mentality, probably given the opportunity to publish a book and make some dough after sleeping with some insiders of the propaganda ministry.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 18, 5:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

bob2356 says
It was about to come out anyway because you say so? and it would have had one set of standardized protocols that all worked to together seamlessly and became endlessly scale-able? Like so many technologies that are seamless between companies? Like all the seamless lan protocols? Like ethernet, token ring, atm, fddi, that all worked together? ROFLOL. Without DARPA and the standards they created plus the military adopting tcp/ip as their standard in 1980 then switching arpanet over from ncp to tcp/ip to in 1983 there would have been no internet around the world.


LOL! Where was the government/military when the numerous standards were established in order for all the parts of your computer to work together? How can USB devices and HDMI displays ever connect to any computer without the heavy hand of government/military?

Do you think industry standards drive technology or technology drives industry standards? Is writing up "industry standards" now considered "technological innovation"?

bob2356 says
E A Johnson invented the capacitive touch screen at the Royal Radar Establishment government research center. Capacitive touch screens are still used today in things like ATM's. So much for being utterly impractical.


Johnson's "touch screen" on a storage scope was in the 1960's! Where were your practical implementations of the technology all through the 60's and 70's? The two decades of non-use proved his approach was impractical. Like I said, the government-apologists are like the idiots who claim Ancient Greeks invented the Steam Engine and Leonardo Da Vinci invented the helicopter. They can't tell the difference between an iPhone vs. a Newton (the previous failed attempt at personal digital assistant from Apple/Steve Jobs, a decade earlier) vs. Lisa with a Wacom digitizer (another decade and half earlier from Apple / Steve Jobs, in the early 1980's); to those idiots, they are all networkable touch input devices.

I will tell you the difference: iPhone was a device that could garner more revenue than the cost of engineering therefore more advanced versions of iPhones could be researched and developed. Whereas Lisa and Newton were devices that were too early for their time, too costly and couldn't recoup initial investment, therefore if persisted with government subsidy would have meant some other iPhone-like sustainable developement would have been prevented from taking place due to taxation! Eventually, of course we will have something far more advanced than today's iPhone; however, timing is of the essence. Wasting more resources on Newton and Lisa would have dragged down the bigger enterprise and have delayed the arrival of something like the iPhone; that sort of priority error is precisely what government intervention does, and what private enterprise (with their own survival and profitability at risk) and competitive market place and the whole market pricing mechanism correct for the society.

What the big-government-apologists are doing is like pointing at the ME-262 and V-2 rocket and claiming the world wouldn't have jet plane or space rockets if not for the Nazis! What they are missing is that: if not for the drafting and waste of resources by Nazis, those same scientists and engineers may well have advanced the jet engine and rockets even faster and for more beneficial civilian use!

BTW, apologists for NASA were even more absurd than Nazi apologists: after hiring the very same former Nazi scientists, they claim NASA invented plastics! Never mind Henry Ford already used plastic for the interior of his cars in the 1920's, long before the Nazi scientists worked for even the Nazis in the 1930's and 40's, never mind them working for NASA in the 1950's and 60's.

bob2356 says
It's not surprising to see another female author with a slave mentality, probably given the opportunity to publish a book and make some dough after sleeping with some insiders of the propaganda ministry.


Nothing like nah, nah, nah your mother wears army boots as a well reasoned intellectual argument. I can see why fox and bretibart do so well.


Find out for yourself what her husband does. The whole family was/is "plugged in" the propaganda industry.
  Reality   ignore (5)   2018 May 18, 5:51pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote        

Something is very wrong with the Public School concept.

Time to shut down the Public Schools, a magnet for incompetents and malcontents.



The Housing Trap
You're being set up to spend your life paying off a debt you don't need to take on, for a house that costs far more than it should. The conspirators are all around you, smiling to lure you in, carefully choosing their words and watching your reactions as they push your buttons, anxiously waiting for the moment when you sign the papers that will trap you and guarantee their payoff. Don't be just another victim of the housing market. Use this book to defend your freedom and defeat their schemes. You can win the game, but first you have to learn how to play it.
115 pages, $12.50

Kindle version available


about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions