Search results matching tag 'Capitalism'

Continental Convention

cryptocode — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:04:52 GMT

MUST WATCH the Continental Convention 2009!!! Increadible! I was crying while watching the opening ceremonies. And the speaches are great. Not all the speakers are great speakers, but the information is fantastic. All the representatives were elected by their States. It's at www.cc2009.us

Strangely enough, though it's been live streaming for 3-4 days, today my computer can't find their film server. I wonder why? Could it be the powers that be?

Private Provisions of Public Goods

krazy kaju — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:44:13 GMT

Notes on Public Goods and Free Market Anarchism:

Public Good - Any good that is non-rivalrous and non-excludable. Such goods, when produced by private entities suffer the "free rider problem."

Free Rider Problem - When people consume a product but do not pay for it.

Example of a Public Good - National defense. If I put an anti-missile system in my backyard, it will not only protect my own home, but the homes of my neighbors (since a missile that would destroy my home would also destroy all the houses in my neighborhood).

Government Solution to Free Rider Problem & Public Goods - The government pays for public goods and taxes the public for it. It justifies the taxes by claiming that free riders need to pay their fair share.

Problems with the Government Solution - The government does not know how much of the public good is optimal. The government could overproduce or underproduce the public good. Moreover, the government would have to set a different tax rate for each person in order to truly be fair, so that the amount tax corresponds to how much such a person would be willing to pay for defense in a free market. This is an impossible task for government to undertake.

Free Market Solution - Assurance contracts. An assurance contract solves the problems with the government solution by producing an amount decided by the free market and by having everyone pay an amount which they believe is adequate for their own defense.

Book: The Genius of the Beast: A Radical Re-Vision of Capitalism

TLP — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:56:08 GMT

I'm getting one of these: http://www.amazon.com/Genius-Beast-Radical-Re-Vision-Capitalism/dp/1591027543

American Revolution anti-capitalist + anti-individualistic?

Moxxar — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:49:31 GMT

Hi everyone, first OP. :)

So today in my introduction to American History class, my professor (who I suspect to be either Marxist or severely social-democratic) talked about the American revolution. He described it and the underlying Republican ideology as anti-capitalistic and anti-individualistic. He said that there was an underlying belief in the need for the individual to sacrifice himself for the 'greater good' as represented by George Washingtons wearily accepting the function of president and as represented by the need for good citizens. He also painted Jefferson as a anti-capitalist, using a quote of his from the note on the state of Virginia talking about that agriculture is good and cities are bad. (very roughly paraphrased)

I challenged him in class and afterwards on these points. (I think this is very far fetched) For example I talked about Paine conveying the need for free trade instead of mercantilism, and about Jeffersons opposition to Hamiltons Federalist pro-mercantilist position. He deflected this partly by saying that Paine was not a good representative of the republican tradition, and that Jefferson was very inconsistent during his lifetime and held different positions in time. I wasn't able to press on unfortunately.

So this brings me to my question. I want to follow up on this discussion with my professor and send him a well reasoned email telling him that I disagree with him, and the reasons behind that. Do you guys agree with me on this? Do you have any good sources which I can use in my rebuttal? Any good sources or quotes to show that Jefferson was not an agricultural anti-capitalist? Or just any other good points about this subject I can learn from or use in my discussion with my professor?

Thank you. :)

ps. just as a disclaimer, I'm Dutch so excuse my non-perfect knowledge of American history

Re: Does capitalism exploit the wak and make the rich powerful

onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 15:47:43 GMT

[quote user="David Z"]

[quote user="inquisitiveteenager"]You see a lot of left wing writers think that but I think capitals creates a situation where you can only benefit by producing first.[/quote]

It depends whose definition of "capitalism" is being used.

Marx has some valid criticisms of "capitalism" which was really more like neo-mercantilism or corporate-capitalism than any "free-market" version of "capitalism". Conflating either of these concepts with free-markets is the source of much confusion. And he was painfully wrong about the Labor Theory of Value. It amazes me that people are still adopting that bullsh*t as a universal truth.

I occasionally find myself in these debates. My advice is to ignore them, you'll always leave feeling dumber, and dirty.

[/quote]

"It depends whose definition of "capitalism" is being used."

And indeed, of "the Wak".

My Journey Within a Marxist Study Group

h4x5k8 — Wed, 09 Sep 2009 23:19:58 GMT

It's hard to discuss economics with a Marxist. It's even harder when you are an Austrian, the school of thought which is essentially the polar opposite of Marxism.

Below is an email from my Marxist friend, we each attend the same Marxist "study group". I sent him a link to what I thought was an excellent critique of Marxian thought, (this recent mises.org article, Scipione on Zizek), which prompted a rather heated reply. The reply contains the epitomy of Marxian thinking, the idiosyncratic pejoratives against capitalism replete throughout the email.

He admits, it seems, to having not even read the article I sent him, but goes on to dismiss it as "more right-wing theology from the free-market corprocrats ... written by some hack."

I have found it very hard to have discussions with a person who, having certain predispositions to a particular ideology, casts off any critique against Marxism prior to investigation as simply a conspiracy of capitalist quacks against the working class. The polylogistic lens of Marxism seems to me an intellectually erroneous excuse to endlessly employ one giant ad hominem fallacy at anyone who dare dissent to their theories: if someone agrees, they must be using proletarian logic, which means they are right; if someone disagrees, they are a self serving capitalist hack, which means they have faulty logic. We should never analyze the merits of one's logical argument, we must simply regard any criticisms apriori as false. (Mises wrote a wonderful critique of polylogism in the beginning of Human Action.)

I will quote a few goodies from Mises, he expresses the same sentiments I have with a much more eloquent tongue:

"The essence of Marxian philosophy is this: We are right because we are the spokesmen of the rising proletarian class. Discursive reasoning cannot invalidate our teachings, for they are inspired by the supreme power that determines the destiny of mankind. Our adversaries are wrong because they lack the intuition that guides our minds." -- Human Action, pp. 83-84

"Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person." -- Socialism, p. 119

"Polylogism denies the uniformity of the logical structure of the human mind. Every social class, every nation, race, or period of history is equipped with a logic that differs from the logic of other classes, nations, races, or ages. Hence bourgeois economics differs from proletarian economics, German physics from the physics of other nations, Aryan mathematics from Semitic mathematics." -- Theory and History, pp. 31-32

I posted this particular email below because I'm sure some will be interested in dissecting the ensuing diatribe. I also posted it hoping for some advice on how to reply, if I should even try.

I feel like giving up. I feel like I just can't go on with him anymore, any semblance of intellectual and rational discussion has long since flown out the window. Perhaps it is all futile: he is not likely to persuade me, I feel the criticisms of the Austrians and their beautifully constructed theoretical edifice is much too persuasive; I won't convince him, he's in his 60's and has been thinking this way for decades, I'm just some poor punk who's been duped by a bunch of apologist hacks advocating a system of mass exploitation.

Let me give you a little background on the circumstances: I live in Boulder, CO (*alarms already going off*). I started attending a Marxist "study group" in a little basement bookstore, a bookstore which supplies more Marxist/Socialist literature than USSR and North Korean public schooling combined. Rather recently, during the months in which these meetings took place, I was deep in the works of Rothbard and Mises nonstop (still am), and have since come to be convinced by the soundness of their criticisms against Marx, and generally persuaded into the austro-anarcho-capitalist outlook, (i.e., don't initiate acts of aggression, voluntary association and non-coercive exchange is both legitimate and mutually beneficial.) I joined the Marxist study group to discuss, debate, and persuade or be persuaded -- in general, to hear the case from the intellectually opposing side in person, straight from the mouth of the beast -- unfortunately it didn't work out so well.

I failed to make a persuasive enough case against the LTV and Marx's exploitation theory, I tried and tried. I handed out brilliant papers (e.g., Hoppe's Marxist/Austrian Class Analysis) only to hear them shoot down the critique without even reading it in typical polylogistic fashion. The meetings have since fallen apart. They were absolutely terrible, nothing ever got done, it was nonstop rambling. No one really understood Marx any better, much less any of the criticisms from the other side. It was quite an interesting experience actually. The meetings were disorganized, there was no plan or principle to the whole study group, it was mostly chaos (the bad kind ), constant digressions -- in general, mind draining. Many a time I left feeling as if I had actually lost a good amount of brain cells, feeling confused and flabbergasted.

I had seen and heard many absurd things throughout these bookstore tribulations: A self proclaimed anarchist telling me that deregulation is bad; people advocating a 100% estate tax so as to destroy the rich, who are evil exploiters; that the true source of value is labor, but art is a special case separate from normal value; that the marginalist revolution didn't solve the water/diamond paradox and the whole idea of marginal utility is a dubious theory; that prices are derived from the average market price (a 3x5 painting will typically sell at the average price for 3x5 paintings -- absurd?!?); that the State is simply an inevitable outcome of capitalism; that anarchy should be socialist but still have markets since markets have been proven to be useful; that the free-market is really a slave market; that intelligence is a form of oppression because "knowledge is power" and everyone should be equally intelligent (see here); that methodological individualism is unfounded, illusory, and false, because we are inevitably a product of the collective and society at large.

I'll try to think of some other jewels of intelligent thought. I even recorded a few sessions, but that was shot down, as it made the members feel too uncomfortable. The gentlemen who wrote the email below summed it up when he said, "There shouldn't be any recordings because sometimes I say things that are wrong, and I don't want them to be on record." Well here is your email, in record, indelible, and online at mises.com, ready for a little intellectual shredding session. I promised you I wouldn't put the recordings online, but no such gaurantee was made for the email.

Regarding the email: It seems like one giant post hoc propter hoc fallacy, devoid of theory and replete with contradictions (e.g., the State helps exploiters by engaging in war and deregulation, therefore we must hand them more power to regulate better; lowering taxes creates boom-bust cycles; the socialism of the 30's 40's and 50's gave America the best healthcare, made us the most prosperous creditor nation, and made possible the work week of forty hours, etc, etc.)

I'm excited to see what the intelligentsia of mises.com have to offer, for this is bound to make an interesting discussion, and hopefully give me the advice I'm looking for on how to handle this (simple and short reply, point by point reply, just give up already?)

He writes:

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

I'd appreciate your reading this since I don't have a lot of time to respond at the moment, and I took time to write this, not copy it from some hack somewhere. With regard to Zizek, this just looks like more right-wing theology from the free-market corpocrats. This is the same blab as the Fox News Republicans. I can get this from the corporate capitalist media 24/7 on every TV and radio station, newspaper and magazine in the country. We've done this "market is god" experiment for the last 40 years; I paid for it! It was a catastrophic failure.

Zizek refers to the "Nanny State"? You bet. That's what the capitalist Republicans brought us. Nannies are working class women who take care of the spoiled little brats of the propertied elite. The capitalist property priests have turned us all into nannies for the 1% of the unproductive, risk-averse, profligate owning class who, in general, neither produce nor homestead nor save. Oh... did they hurt their little feet stomping on the people that give them their wealth. Let's take a couple of trillion dollars from the real producers an give it to the poor babies so they stop whining. So the "nanny state", must be one that gives the mewling propertied elite everything they want at the expense of the rest of us. And the free-marketeers believe this to be the founding principle of a just, free, equitable society? I don't think so.

The facts are these: in 1969, after 30 years of "Socialism" (ha-ha), the United States:
- Was the largest creditor nation in the world
- We had the, by all measures, best health care system on the planet
- The median net worth was ~80% of the mean, a reasonably equitable distribution of property.
- We had by most measures, the highest standard of living.
- The average work week was slightly over 40 hrs. and most workers received overtime pay for work weeks longer than this.
- Over 30 years there was continued steady economic growth, with one recession during the Republican Eisenhower administration
- The national debt stood at $1.68 T (All debt expressed in Year 2000 $)
- The German Mark (which was to become the Euro) stood at 0.33 US dollars and the dollar was the trusted reserver currency for the world

Then began the experiment by de-regulation obsessed uber-capitalists; just off the top of my head, here's how it went:
- In 1968 we begin the corporatist Nixon/Ford regime.
- In 1973 the Trilateral Commission is formed by the economic elite touting free-market, free-trade ideologies. They immediately formulate and publish the GATT policies for
globalization.
- In 1973 we have a major economic downturn, the worst since the 30s.
- In 1975, the national debt stands at $1.71 T.
- In 1976 it's Carter who puts 17 Trilateralists in key government positions, including all cabinet posts.
- In 1979 free-marketeer Margaret Thatcher elected in the UK; invents the terms "Nanny State" while British workers are emptying her diapers.
- In 1979 the national debt is $1.91 T.
- In 1979 Carter's National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzenski, articulates a policy of destablizing the USSR by supporting Islamists in Afghanistan
- In 1980 it's Reagan expounding the free-market doctrine and vowing to eliminate big government. The Republicans vow to attack all regulations of corporations or markets and a policy of non-enforcement.
- In 1980 food, energy and health care remove from cost of living index (who needs these anyway?)
- 1980-1988 Reagan massively increases funding to Islamists.
- 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war; US eggs Saddam into invading Iran. Cheney meets with Saddam. US and its allies provide funding, expertise in chemical warfare, weapons and intelligence (including weather data allowing Saddam to effective use chemical warfare). Over a million people die.
- In 1983 we have the worst economic downturn since 1929.
- In 1983, responding to a massive communist military menace, make it's glorious preemptive strike on Grenada (pop. 110, 000). The British aerospace giant, Plessy (contractors for the avionics suite for the Harrier jump-jet, and prime contractor for the improvement of the airport in Grenada) makes a snarky public response pointing out that the Cuban army invaders are actually construction workers in the employ of Plessy, along with a dozen reasons why the airport is unsuitable for military use. The media-stoned American Public wets themselves over a war we can win.
- In 1987 we have the S&L crash, transferring over $1 trillion from the pockets of producers to the propertied elite; this is a direct result of S&L deregulation and non-enforcement. Over $5 Billion of this goes to bail out Neil Bush's Silverado S&L.
- In 1987 the national debt is $3.49 T.
- In 1988, Bush 1 continues Reaganoid policies.
- In 1989, Bush invades Panama to remove the dictator that Bush installed when he was the Director of the CIA. Seems his boy Noriega was skimming off more than his share of the profits from the CIA's cocaine trade being run through Panama to fund the Contras.
- In 1990, the first Gulf War. Saddam, his economy in shambles due to war and dropping oil prices, invades Kuwait, claiming Kuwait, with the help of Haliburton, has been slant-drilling into Iraq's Ramalia oil field, in contravention of an international agreement between the two countries. US Ambassador April Glaspie having assured him "...we have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait." Oil prices rise.
- In 1991 the national debt is $4.68 T, having doubled in 12 years of capitalist deregulation and "fiscal conservatism", and massive gifts to aerospace corps and bankers.
- In 1992 Clinton takes office, a corporatist slightly to the right of Nixon signs NAFTA but attempts to rescue the elite from the mess they created.
- In 1999 the national debt is $5.81 T.
- In 1999 the DotCom crash
- In 2000, Bush 2 appointed president on the most explicitly free-market anti-regulation platform so far. Uses illegal signing statements and directives, we see the most massive intervention to inhibit regulation of the free (i.e. slave) market. A "jobless" recovery slowly ensues, widening the gap between producers and owners.
- In 2001 - Islamist chickens come home to roost, funded by Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, trained by CIA-trained elements in the Pakistani IIS and the Islamist survivors of the us funded campaign in Afghanistan... Bush blames Iraq. American public eats his shit.
-In 2008, predictably, the free-market deregulation chickens come home to roost; 1929 repeats itself. Britain, still under the thrall of Thatcherism experiences a similar collapse; the highly regulated, socialist EU does much better. Bush's free-market nanny state hands out trillion dollar checks to squalling corporate babies; the situation worsens for almost everyone else.
- In 2009, Obama, despite the rhetoric, continues Bush's corporatist policies and another "jobless" recovery ensues.

So, in 2009 after 40 years of deregulation and free-market policies;
- Top bracket individual tax rates dropped from 91% to 33%
- Estate taxes have dropped even more precipitously
- The corporate tax rate is now 29th out of 33 largest industrial economies (the lowest rate being 33rd). The capitalist free-market apologists will tell you the US rate is 2nd highest, which is true. The conveniently fail to mention that due to a list of exemptions the size of the Manhattan telephone directory (no kidding; look at the IRS code sometime) the corporations never pay this rate.
- In terms of corporate freedom from regulation the US ranks second, having just lost its first place position to Switzerland
- Gains in the '60s and early '70s in women's and minority rights have been aggressively attacked and rolled back
In other words, the Bush-Clinton-Reagan free-market agenda has been quite successful and reducing taxes on the elite and deregulating the market.

The result:
- The national debt stands at $9.51 T.
- The Euro stands at 1.45 dollars and the major economies (especially the BRICs) are scrambling to get their reserves in something other than dollars.
- Three major economic crashes.
- The US is now the largest debtor nation in the world.
- In terms of balance of trade, the US goes from be one of the largest exporters to one of the largest importers.
- The median net worth has fallen below 20% of the mean. America has the most disproportionate distribution of wealth in the world, followed closely by Mexico.
- The American much vaunted free-enterprise health-care system ranks 72 in the world in cost effectiveness, 37th in the world in terms of outcome (between the Republic of Slovenia and Cuba), dead last terms of cost per capita, absolute and as a percentage of GDP, and one of the worst in terms of percentage of population covered. Were it not for "socialist" Medicare, its ranking would be somewhere around 90th in cost effectiveness, and in terms of outcome, the rank would be down among the countries in sub-Saharan Africa. It is also the worst in rationing medical care, worst in wait times for critical care (when you figure in those who can't afford care and wait for the rest of their lives), worst in terms in obtrusive intervention between patient and provider, at 31%, worst in terms bureaucratic overhead including insurance company "death" panels which deny valid claims to enhance profits and as a result kill more Americans in a year than "terrorists" have killed in the last 200 years... all of which would be much worse were it not for the "socialized" Medicare/Medicaid. "We need tort reform" they squeal. In the 20 or so states which have implemented tort reform at the state level, the medical care costs INCREASED in all of them. Nice try! All countries ranking better in this regard have "socialized medicine."
- The average work week has increased by over 20% since 1968 while overall compensation dropped (wages + benefits); the American labor force is the world's most productive, but one of the most poorly compensated in the industrialized countries. Producers, homesteaders, savers are working harder, longer and more effectively and getting much less.
- The overall standard of living has dropped from the best in the world to 13th, despite the highest per capita resource consumption. The 12 countries which are better are all "socialist".
- Economic growth stagnates in the US - "socialist" India and China experience double-digit growth for a decade fueled by outsourced American jobs and factories.
- Despite all the rhetoric, the most productive and creative businesses, small and medium sized businesses and startups, have been savaged by this economic policy, being the primary victims of the .com and current bubbles.

Nice going guys! The experiment has been performed and the outcome is known.

Note: Almost all stats come from international organizations, corporate publications (e.g. the Economist), the US Census Bureau, Treasury Dept and the Federal Reserve, all of which would be expected to paint as rosy a picture as possible. [BTW - regarding your assertion of that the Economist is a left-wing publication because they feature Paul Krugman, I looked through the last few months and the only reference I noticed to Krugman was a brief summary of some lectures he was doing in London, offered without analysis. Could you provide me with a few cites (say 10, issue and page numbers), articles by or positive references to Krugman from the Economist?].

I am not interested in hearing anymore stats or blab from corporate-sponsored advertising agencies like the Hoover Institution (what can one say about an Institution named after the guy who presided over the last crash), the Hudson Institute, the Heritage Foundation, American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute, the Freedom Forum, the Reason Foundation, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the RAND Corporation, the Cato Institute, FoxNews or any other company owned by Rupert Murdock; Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, Michell Malkin, Lew Dobbs, Bill O'Rielly or any other of the hundreds of neo-Nazi racist media hacks who dominate the political scene in America -- unless it's an sincere apology for creating this catastrophe.

I know of no historical case since the rise of industrial capitalism where absence government intervention of taxation or regulation has ever produced any improvement in the lives majority of the population (i.e. the actual producers). In all cases, any improvement in the living conditions of most producers has been brought about by worker actions to limit capitalists, often taking the form of government regulations. This includes:
- raising living standards above bare subsistence
- limiting working hours and the work week; the concept of the "week end"
- reducing the exposure of workers to lethal hazards
- medical and retirement benefits
- unemployment
- compensation for injured workers
- regulation of lethal environmental pollution
- regulation of toxins and pathogens in the food and water supply
Workers paid for this with their lives and blood; free-market capitalists have historically opposed, often violently, every advance that might improve the lives of 99% of the people.

Anarcho-capitalism and the removal of all restraint on the actions of the propertied elite. As I've said before, those that are sincere mistake the locus of power and coercion in society. The capitalist, propertied hereditary elite by-in-large OWN the government; it acts on their behalf. As Zappa put it, "The government is the entertainment division of the military-industrial complex."The elite differ only in their assessment of how far they can immiserate the rest of us before revolt ends with "...the last capitalist hung with the guts of the last priest."

Remove all regulation and
- The owners ally and form even larger consortia to oppress the population
- Private police and armies replace government coercion; there are already more than 100 corporations provide such services... effectively corporate terrorist policing in policing, intelligence, covert and over military ops, interrogation and torture, etc. They operate globally.
- Policing will be supplemented by the elimination of any alternate viewpoint - the global ownership of all media will assure this.
- The reduction of the population to absolute misery. There is no freedom for the hungry.

This isn't theoretical - our 40 year experiment and the last 200 years of history confirm it. It is my belief that the drive to accumulate property beyond one's needs represents a drive to dominate, control and coerce others. It may be some element of human nature, or individual pshchopathology, or, by in large, the result of living under a society where the choices are to dominate or be dominated. But whatever the source, I don't think there is any social interest in promoting it.

Anarcho-capitalists believe "your money or your life" is a "free choice." The gun to the producer's head is the threat of starvation: there is no free choice and it's simply fatuous to assert this. The only unique skill of the elite in this society is parasitism - living on the work of others.

If you can come up with any realistic anarcho-capitalist scenario where leaving hereditary concentrations of wealth and property relations intact and removing "government intervention in the market" can result in the improvement in the freedom and welfare of the vast majority of the people, I'm all ears. But the approach of the free-market theorists has been to pretend the problem doesn't exist. Unconvincing! If they cannot come up with a realist explanation of why this won't simply result in more concentration of wealth and impoverishment of the majority of people, I'm not interested. Absent this, Anarcho-capitalism appears to be literally a religion, derived from the Lutheran and Calvinist doctrines of the Reformation that the wealth is evidence of God's grace, and therefor the wealthy are virtuous and just. It just flies in the face of all empirical and historical data.

Is O'Rielly Irish?
Does a fox shit in your living room?

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

If you have any questions about he "Study Group", bookstore, or Boulder in general, please ask away. More can definitely be said about this journey.

Let me end with one more jewel of an anecdote: When I first attended the study group, I was asked my purpose for attending. I explained to them that I wanted to hear the marxist views straight from the mouths of believers, and that I was coming from a critical and skeptical perspective looking for a little enlightenment from those living in different "reality tunnels". I was welcomed with warm arms, and was told that since there was no dogmatism in Marxism, I am certainly welcome to offer up any criticisms I might have -- the leader ended by facetiously commenting, "Just as long as you keep this in mind the whole time your here: you're ultimately wrong. *chuckle*".

Yes.. No dogmatism at all

Incentive imped problem solving.

greywolf4744 — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 01:47:43 GMT

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

Everywhere In Chains

Tiberius — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 21:32:14 GMT

I'm new to this forum, but I don't plan on staying for very long. I've just come to introduce my blogel (blogged novel, if you didn't know). I'm calling it "Everywhere in Chains", after the infamous Rousseau quote, "Man is born free, but he is everywhere in chains." (After becoming a laissez-fairist, it struck me that Rousseau did not try to eliminate the chains, he did not even merely try to explain them; he tried to legitimatize them.)
The novel is the story of a young man who is a bit of a celebrity at his school for his defiance of the state, and managing to avoid any serious punishment. Following the death of a certain member of the Government, he and his friends commit a serious defiance of the Censorship Laws. When the government puts out an arrest warrant for him, the young man finds himself in the middle of a rebellion in his city.
I can promise you, it'll be filled with praises for Capitalism, denunciations of Socialism, and blind faith in government portrayed as a destroyer of civilization.
So if you want to check it out, please do so. The first chapter comes out September first. Here's the address: http://everywhereinchains.wordpress.com/

More Government Revenues, Less Taxes

krazy kaju — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 18:23:02 GMT

There are 300 million Americans and 365 days in a year, so if each American traveled on a federal road once a day and was charged $1 for doing so, the federal government would garner $109,500,000,000 ($109.5 billion) in revenues.

Of course, there are various operating expenses which would take away from the revenue, not all Americans travel on federal roads once daily, some Americans travel more than once daily on a federal road, tolls on federal roads would create incentives to carpool and/or travel on different roads, etc.

But consider this: let's say that the federal government would semi-privatize federal roads by licensing private companies to operate certain roads for certain amounts of time. Say that Company A would pay $1 million up front and $1 per traveler to operate US 1 for 5 years. The $1 million plus $1 per traveler would be pure profit for the federal government, since all operating expenses would go to Company A, which would have an incentive to keep the road in good condition for customers.

Now imagine the federal Postal Service and railways also being "semi-privatized" in this manner, or at the very least, turned into profitable ventures. Also imagine Congress using the power it has to coin money, instead of whoring that out to a cartel of banks, the Federal Reserve System. The federal government would be able to earn at least a couple hundred billion in profits from such ventures. This would require political pressure to make these ventures profitable, but it could be possible in a society where balanced budgets, low taxes, and government self-sustainability are key.

If the federal government also took some other steps, like eliminating trade quotas and high tariffs, and replacing those with low tariffs, eliminating the thousands of regulations which cost the economy an estimated $1 trillion GDP (according to the CEI), legalizing drugs but taxing them slightly, eliminating certain taxes which harshly punish economic growth (e.g. business taxes and capital gains taxes), and simplifying other taxes (e.g. income and payroll taxes) in order to reduce waste, then the economy could grow much more quickly, while ensuring that the government still has enough revenue for many of its pet projects like Social Security, Medicare, and high military spending.

Of course, such a transformation in government would be a mixed blessing, since it would make government much more efficient, which isn't something libertarians should be looking forward to. But at least the economy would receive a permanent boost from such government reforms.

I suppose my point in writing all of this is that even a lover of big government should get behind some semi-capitalistic reforms of government. Sometimes, lessening the burden of government in the form of taxes, regulations, and wasteful agencies, allows the government to earn more in revenues from economic growth and semi-privatization.

Re: Did Rothbard get good grades?

pablofrancisco — Sat, 15 Aug 2009 16:02:53 GMT

[quote user="I. Ryan"]

[quote user="Knight_of_BAAWA"]

You confuse humor with petulant childishness. Don't do that again.

[/quote]

Are you always that serious?

[/quote]

Yes, he is.

Humor has no place in life.