text:
James A. Donald wrote

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
Have fun explaining the dramatic increase in employment from 1933, you silly little pathological liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
Have fun explaining the dramatic increase in employment from 1933, you silly little pathological liar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Employment_Graph_-_1920_to_1940.svg
Have fun explaining the dramatic increase in employment from 1933, you silly little pathological liar.

There is no correlation, you silly little pathological liar.

There is no correlation, you silly little pathological liar.


author: Beam Me Up Scotty

subject: Re: Whining about unemployment and promoting dollar idiocy

text:
Rod Speed wrote:

You are very interested in what other people do with their money so....

So the rich should be concerned why you are an "idiot poor person" and
tax and pass laws and mandate things like military service on you
because that helped them get rich?

Rich people should ban you from wasting money on New Cars and you should
be banned from dinner out..... till you are rich?    Obviously you are
so concerned about their money, they have every right to be concerned
about your lack of money.

I can just see the new laws that will regulate and tax you poor so that
your wasteful and ignorant money management will be addressed.

No poor people allowed to buy stuff without pre-approval by the IRS.

This is ECONOMIC JUSTICE..

NO poor people eating out, you cook your own dinners.
No poor people going out to entertainment like Baseball Games and Race
car events.

NO poor at Rock concerts
No poor Vacations, just working vacations.
No poor in Cabs, you walk
NO planes, use the BUS.

The rich are worried about you and have deemed it their problem to make
you wealthy.....  These and more intrusions will be coming soon to the
poor near you, with the clear plan to solve the problem of poor people.

Any violations are punishable by $5000 and or 5 years in Prison.


author: Phlip

text:
James A. Donald wrote:

You are just trolling, right? Those cuts were the beginning of a huge ramp up in
the federal deficit. Before Reagan, only one parent needed to work to support a
household. After Reagan, both parents had to work.

Tax-n-spend Republicans at work!


author: Rod Speed

text:
James A. Donald wrote

Which didnt last for long.

Plenty of other examples of tax cuts that didnt produce any prosperity too.


text:
Phlip wrote

Thats mad. It doesnt have anything to do with how homogeneous it is, most
obviously with Japan which is even more homogeneous than Denmark.

Yes.

Thats even madder.

America has done for a long time, most obviously with anti trust legislation.


author: Les Cargill

text:
Phlip wrote:

Wrong organ. If we have the *brains*. But the kind of competition
you are talking about is pretty foreign to me - I remember when
athletes had class. I don't see a lot of class anywhere these days.

The challenges of affluence are difficult because we don't
have a lot of data on it. It's new to us.


author: James A. Donald

subject: Re: Whining about unemployment and  promoting dollar idiocy

text:
In 1929, the government forbade the market to adjust prices and wages
to reality, causing the great depression.

That is just because the government is manipulating the cpi, thereby
producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina

Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month

And the reason it "only" rose to 10.2 is that very large numbers of
people are no longer considered job seekers.  The number of employed
people continues to plunge.

That is a recession all right.  People are losing their jobs.  When
lots of people lose their jobs, it is a recession.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Yadda wrote:

Many predicted a full depression.

Didnt happen.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald said the following:

Yadda

The government has guaranteed the money funds - suddenly
they also are too big to fail.

Of course, when the entire economy is too big to fail
then we have a fully socialist economy, which experience
has shown does not work well.


author: Michael Coburn

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:37:30 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

Soros and Gates will stay rich no matter what and the UAW will exist but
have very little power.   But anyone that believes that "affirmative
action lending" (as the term "affirmative action" has been traditionally
understood) caused the financial bubble is living in an alternate
reality.   The people creating the loans would have loaned to blow up
dolls if they could have done so.  That is so because the people creating
the loans were profiting regardless of any long term consequences and the
speculators (not the retirement oriented HOME buyers) were not in it for
the long term anyway.  It was no different than the rampant borrowing
that pumped up the 1920's stock market.

The Republicans are still blocking the Senate.  Joe LIEberman is a
Republican dressed up as an independent.  Max Baucus is a Republican
dressed up as a Democrat.

The only pattern I see is that the Republicans CAUSED both disasters.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

That aint an unintended consequence, fuckwit.

That aint an unintended consequence, fuckwit.

That aint an unintended consequence, fuckwit.

Like hell they are.

Pure fantasy.

Bare faced lie. Its only just got to double digits, fuckwit.

Another bare faced lie. The govt doesnt do what he wants it to do.

Who cares ?

Another bare faced lie.

Another bare faced lie.

Its just your pathetic little drug crazed rabid racist fantasy.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:34:47 +1100, "Rod Speed"

Since 2000, the government has concealed the default rate on CRA
loans, indicating that the default rate was disturbingly high in 2000.
It can only have risen since then.


text:
James A. Donald wrote:

Les Cargill

Odd how productivity started to soar after Lehman brothers.  Funny
that.

Exactly so.

So if the government hired a million people each at a thousand dollars
a day to dig holes in the ground, and another million to fill them in,
and did this for 100 days, then this would raise GDP by two hundred
billion.

Hurray, Hurray, a huge productivity gain!

People who used to create value at the rate of, perhaps, a hundred
dollars a day, in the form of real estate deals are now creating value
at the rate of a thousand dollars a day in the form of holes in the
ground, a tenfold improvement in productivity!

Oh wow!  Stimulus can make us all rich by vastly increasing our
productivity! So let us have a really huge stimulus, a trillion dollar
stimulus.

Oops.  We did have a trillion dollar stimulus.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Yadda wrote

Yep.

Nope, thats only happened twice in 100 years now.

Feel free to set fire to yourself inside the Jefferson Memorial any time you like.

Kerosine works very well for that.


author: Yadda

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/8/09 3:06 PM Rod Speed said the following:

Is that why there were big recessions in the 1950's.  Have you noticed
that recission frequency has gotten worse since the FED was founded?

[snip]


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

You're lying, as always. That particular web page shows small increases in both.

You wouldnt know what a real lie was if one bit you on your lard arse.

Another bare faced lie.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Yadda wrote

You're lying, as always.

You're lying, as always.

The difference between U6 and U5 are EMPLOYED, fuckwit.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

You're lying, as always.

Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel.

You're in fact bare faced lying about what they actually said.

Lying, as always.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.

More of your pathological lying.


text:
James A. Donald wrote

And it obviously does too, fuckwit.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

More of your pathological lying.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist terminal fuckwits/pathological liars ?

Who cares, he's dead, fuckwit.

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist terminal fuckwits/pathological liars ?


text:
Tax cuts to the extreme rich only line their pockets. They have _no_ incentive
to _risk_ that money by investing it in new jobs.

Tax cuts to the poor let them buy things, stimulating the economy directly.


text:
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote:

I am very interested in what other people do with _my_ money, yeah!


text:
Phlip wrote

Nope, he's actually stupid enough to believe that.

Yes, but there was still a significant boom as well.

Thats a lie.

Another lie.

Another lie.


author: John Galt

text:
Phlip wrote:

You are factually incorrect. The inflation that caused that situation
happened *prior* to Reagan. It was, in fact, a condition started when
LBJ decided he could be the first president to wage war without a
funding mechanism for it. This created a runup in debt that Nixon
erroneously solved by printing money, and the one-wage-earner household
(which, btw, is a historical anomaly) was doomed from that point:

Inflation rates in the 70's:

1973: 6.16%
1974: 11.03%
1975: 9.02%
1976: 5.75%
1977: 6.5%
1978: 7.62%
1979: 11.22%
1980: 13.58%

That's all prior to Reagan.

Yes, and since the Dems basically threw their only fiscally responsible
example of leadership under the bus when they marginalized the DLC this
last cycle, the Dems have no business claiming they;re any better.

In fact, without Clinton, their historical record is worse.

JG


text:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 12:20:48 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<[email]> wrote:

Ireland was poor, is now wealthy.  Its rate of growth has merely
slowed, not reversed.


text:
Les Cargill wrote

The ancient greeks used to sit around in their togas or whatever
they wore and howl the same way. Bet that comes with age/senility.

Like hell it is.


text:
James A. Donald wrote:

Hoover did that eh ?

Thanks for the completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Thanks for the completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Pity about the car sales, fuckwit.

Whoopy fucking do. Hordes of countrys would sell their first borns into slavery to get a result like that, fool.

Another bare faced lie. U-4 and U-5 went up by the same amount you silly little pathological liar.

Another bare faced lie.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.


author: hal

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:25:57 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<[email]> wrote:

You aren't that naive, are you?  I mean, you seem like a pretty smart
fellow.  You don't really think it's over, do you?


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 16:25:57 +1100, "Rod Speed"

That is just because the government is manipulating the cpi, thereby
producing fictitious growth, as in Argentina

Unemployment just rose 0.4% to 10.2% this month

And the reason it "only" rose to 10.2 is that very large numbers of
people are no longer considered job seekers.  The number of employed
people continues to plunge.

That is a recession all right.  People are losing their jobs.  When
lots of people lose their jobs, it is a recession.

The number of jobs has been in steady and rapid decline for quite some
time, and the decline shows no sign of flattening out - indeed, as the
"stimulus" starts to bite, it shows signs of accelerating.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/7/09 6:27 PM Rod Speed said the following:

Wait for the second round.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 06:24:21 +1000, James A. Donald wrote:

<<<<<<<<< remaining stone cold stupidity deleted >>>>>>>>>>>

Recession strikes first at the bottom, liar.  Foreclosed homes will have
been the purchases of the poor in any event regardless of the terms.  The
_crises_ was caused by world wide economic contraction in the face of oil
prices above $100 bbl.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4643

As to how this over speculated financial bubble was created you continue
to look in the wrong places:

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics.economics/msg/
c5e3fea9ea49c21a?dmode=source


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/7/09 10:41 PM James A. Donald said the following:

but what if persons still insist on taking out money?  Then the house of
cards is revealed.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote:

Only the fools.

Nope, just big enough to produce another great depression or worse if they are allowed to fail.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

No one has ever tried that fuckwit.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Michael Coburn <[email]> wrote:

James A. Donald

Michael Coburn

Gates would have stayed rich.  Soros would have been drastically
diminished, Goldman and Sach would have been stony broke.

The UAW would have been no longer be able to fund Democrats and roll
out the vote.

The crisis was caused by defaults:  Look up the default statistics by
suburb.  Suburbs with no or very few members of protected minorities
have no or very few defaults.  Suburbs with numerous members of
protected minorities have hundreds of defaults.

In december 2008 I checked defaults on
http://www.sfgate.com/webdb/foreclosures/ and found them to be
proportional the number of protected minorities.  Within those areas
where I know the racial composition, the crisis is wholly and entirely
a crisis of affirmative action lending.  East Palo Alto, six pages of
foreclosures, Palo Alto in Santa Clara (Palo Alto West of the freeway,
twelve pages of foreclosures, Gilroy (an exurb where it is very
difficult to find anyone who speaks english) twelve pages of
foreclosures.

In 2005 2006 I was observing the people buying houses in Sunnyvale.
The vast majority of the people buying houses were unfit borrowers,
and every unfit borrower that I observed, were people that no one
would have loaned money to had they been white.  The affirmative
action was glaringly obvious.

Every single unfit borrower that I observed in Sunnyvale was a member
of a protected minority, even though Sunnyvale is or was a majority
white suburb.  Therefore, they would only have loaned to blow up dolls
if they had a racial quota for blow up dolls.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.

You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.

You can keep repeating that bare faced lie till you are
blue in the face if you like, it stays a bare faced racist lie.


text:
James A. Donald wrote

Cant even manage its own lines, or anything else at all either.

That is just another of your bare faced lies.

Nope.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.


text:
James A. Donald wrote:

But this *would* repair the deflationary trend. Quickly. Unlike the
present stimulus.

Who was it that called Keynsianism "cargo cult economics"?

<googles>

Lots of people...

But it's likely to actually... work. It is after all,
human psychology underlying it all.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Yadda wrote

Not one depression, fool.

Another pig ignorant lie.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/8/09 6:06 PM Rod Speed said the following:

"Note: "Marginally attached workers" are added to the total labor force
for unemployment rate calculation for U4, U5, and U6. The BLS revised
the CPS in 1994 and among the changes the measure representing the
official unemployment rate was renamed U3 instead of U5.[34]"

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#Measurement

"Notes: 1940ï¿½2009 data are from Bureau of Labor Statistics[39]. See also
"Historical Comparability" under the Household Data section of the
Explanatory Notes at http://www.bls.gov/cps/eetech_methods.pdf.
1890ï¿½1930 data are from Romer.[40] 1930ï¿½1940 data are from Coen.[41]
Data prior to 1948 are for persons age 14 and over. Data beginning in
1948 are for persons age 16 and over. See image info for complete data."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment#Measurement

I have a friend who is forced to work part time and is having trouble
making ends meet.   Is he a fuckwit too?


text:
Phlip wrote:

Depends. If you're extremely rich because you're an athlete or
Hollywooder, probably so.

OTOH, If you're extremely rich because of business, you continue to
invest your money where it can earn you the best returns. There is no
better potential return than in venture investment.

The poor don't pay income taxes. Therefore, changing the marginal rates
doesn't do anything for them, or the economy, whatsoever.

JG


text:
John Galt wrote

Yes.

That is a lie. WW2 was done precisely the same way.

Which was nothing like what was seen during WW2.

The real problem at that time was stagflation.

Like hell it was.

Like hell it was.


text:
Phlip wrote

Thats very arguable. Plenty would claim that there was plenty of
prosperity produced during his time, most obviously with the real
estate boom. Whether that was due to tax cuts is even more messy.


text:
James A. Donald wrote

Not anymore it aint, its poor again.

Thats not wealthy, you silly little pathological liar.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Its actually added quite a
bit of stimulus and THAT has seen the GDP hike substantially.

Nothing even remotely like Argentina, you silly little pathological liar.

A rate many other countrys would sell their first born into slavery to get, fuckwit.

Another bare faced lie. U4 and U5 increased by about
the same amount, you silly little pathological liar.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

The total employed didnt even drop, you silly little pathological liar.

Taint a TECHNICAL recession, fuckwit.

Wrong, as always.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.

Another bare faced lie, you silly little pathological liar.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote

Wont happen either. We've actually worked out that it makes a hell of a
lot more sense to stimulate early when clowns have completely imploded
the entire world financial system, AGAIN, and not wait till that has
produced massive unemployment and most of the banks going bust.

We havent even been stupid enough to try tarrif barrier wars either.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Yadda wrote

We wont get one even if there is a second round.


author: *Anarcissie*

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 9, 3:24 pm, James A. Donald <[email]> wrote:

The defaults were the trigger, but the larger cause behind it was
a vastly overvalued real estate market, of which the defaulted
properties were but a small part.  That overvaluation (bubble) can
be attributed to Bubbles Greenspan and Co.'s very deliberate
policy of creating funny credit money by holding the Fed rate
far under where interest rates would be if they were determined
by private lenders.  Now, there is a yet larger cause behind that,
which I guess is the need to cover up the general failure of the
American economy, due to radical mismanagement by its
rulers and leaders.

It is obvious that if the credit situation had not been pathological
at the time of the real estate defaults, they would hardly have
cause a ripple; the foreclosed housing would simply have been
recycled by a generally thriving system and only the con artists
and their marks would have suffered, as usual.

Now we're going to see whether even funnier funny money than
we had before can reinflate the markets for a while.  It doesn't
seem to be creating any jobs.  If nothing is being produced it's
kind of hard to accumulate enough real capital to hire real
people to make real things.  We can always sell each other
insurance, though.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Nov 9, 4:22 pm, "Rod Speed" <[email]> wrote:

What I like about abstraction breakfast cereal is
that it always stays crunchy even after you pour
a lot of abstract milk on it.

The dog won't eat it, though.


author: David P.

subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
"Rod Speed" <[email]> wrote:

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/30377179/aview/sci1.JPG

http://imagehost.vendio.com/a/30377179/aview/sci2.JPG
.
.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote:

Michael Coburn

Gilroy is not the bottom.  It is a pleasant exurb full of relatively
prosperous Mexicans, and it has the highest default rate in the bay
area.

When people want to argue that whites are defaulting also, they are
apt to point to Gilroy, assuming, incorrectly, that its prosperity
indicates whiteness.  When I went there to buy fireworks, it took
me a long time to find someone who spoke English.

Protected racial status, not economic status, or even credit rating,
predicts defaults.
<http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/01/we-finally-have-first-admittedly-small.html>
White people who could not or would repay loans, could not borrow,
and therefore could not default.

The most direct data about defaults by race comes from the 1990s
<http://isteve.blogspot.com/2009/02/1990s-fha-mortgage-default-rates-by.html>
However this data was rapidly getting worse, and after 2000 the
government has gone to considerable lengths to suppress it.

Since that data came, lending to hispanics increased by a factor of
eight, which would have led to an even more extreme racial discrepancy
in defaults.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 15:50:06 -0600,  <[email]> wrote:

James A. Donald said the following:

Yadda

More money is printed.

Of course the end state of solving all problems by printing more money
is revealed by Zimbabwe. <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ubJp6rmUYM>


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/7/09 11:58 PM Rod Speed said the following:

Do you understand how the monetary system works?  Fractional Banking?
Animal Spirits?   Non-Linear Reverse?


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Thank for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

It was actually caused by the real estate bubble bursting, and
the terminally stupid AAA+ ratings that the bundled securitized
mortgages got that they didnt even come close to qualifying for.

Just because they are also the burbs with fuck all new housing in them.

But not exclusively those houses owned by those minoritys, you silly little pathological liar.

You have absolutely no idea what minoritys they
had, you silly little flagrantly racist pathological liar.

Another bare faced pathological lie.

Just because thats where the new houses are, fuckwit.

You have absolutely NO way of knowing whether they were unfit borrowers or not, fuckwit.

More of your pathological lying.

Your flagrantly one eyed racist bigotry is glaringly obvious.

You have absolutely no way of knowing whether they
were unfit borrowers or not, you silly little pathological liar.

So much for your lie about only the non whites defaulting.

More of your pathological lies.

The absolute vast bulk of sub prime loans were to WHITES, fuckwit.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

"Rod Speed"

So how many CRA loans defaulted in 2006, 2005, 2004, etc?


text:
--
James A. Donald wrote:

Les Cargill

What deflationary trend?  It is pretty obvious that
prices have rising throughout the whole period when the
official figures showed them to be falling, and even if
you believe the official figures rather than your own
lying eyes, the official figures have stopped falling
and started to rise.  According to the official BLS
figures, US prices rose 0.6% in the two months
august/september, an annualized rate of 3.6% inflation,
which is uncomfortably high.  The actual rate is
probably a lot higher.

Not working yet.

And in addition to lying about the cpi, the government
is now lying about unemployment.  Observe the curious
discrepancy between the official BLS numbers for US
employment, and the BLS household survey.
<http://www.minyanville.com/articles/recession-argentina-japan-brazil-AIG-GM-fannie-freddie-banks-bubbles-credit-mortgage-housing-Mauldin/index/a/25332>

So inflation is rising, and unemployment is soaring,
even on official figures, which Keynesians tell you is
not supposed to happen at the same time.  Officially, we
have ten percent unemployment and four percent
inflation.  Unofficially, we have seventeen percent
unemployment and eight percent inflation.

Keynesianism is what economists tell their masters,
because it is what their masters want to hear.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/8/09 6:07 PM Rod Speed said the following:

You do get repetitive so be aware there is a tendency to discount what
you say.  You cite no data and hurl insults.  Did you learn that in P.C.
college?


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Yadda wrote

Nothing like your bare faced lies above.

Nothing like your bare faced lies above.

Nope, just EMPLOYED, fuckwit.


text:
John Galt wrote:

Bizarre. A> You don't seem to understand we tax income well below the poverty
level. And B> you sin by omitting the sales taxes and all the nuisance fees that
afflict the poor disproportionately more than the rich.


text:
John Galt wrote

Gates doesnt.

Pig ignorant lie. Thats also the highest risk.

Indeed.


text:
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:50:05 +1100,  <[email]> wrote:

James A. Donald wrote

"Rod Speed"

James A. Donald:

"Rod Speed"

You wish:

Here is a graph of Irish GDP to 2008

<http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:IRL&q=%22irish+gdp%22>

OECD thinks it will have lost 10% in 2009 2010

Which is not all that serious for a country that has been growing as
fast and far as Ireland.

The US economy is collapsing because government spending is making
entrepreneurs afraid.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 10:25:46 +1100, "Rod Speed"

If stimulus was working, we would see employment rising.
Instead it is falling, and falling far and fast.

<http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/27000/Weak+Employment+Report>
: :	   The October employment report came in
: :	   weaker than expected as the country lost
: :	   190,000 jobs, rather than the 175,000
: :	   expectation. It was, however, an
: :	   improvement over the 219,000 lost in
: :	   September, but worse than the 154,000 jobs
: :	   lost in August.

How does gdp rise, when the number of people working
falls?  Are those that remain magically becoming a lot
more productive all of a sudden?  To get the numbers to
come out right, it is not enough to suppose they fired
the least productive, you have to suppose that those
that remained got better.

To make the figures add up, you need a sudden and quite
improbable surge in productivity.

Because they have long had the same policies as Obama is
now introducing.

See the above link.

 The mystery of the magical increase in productivity
comes from valuing stuff at what government pays for it.

Suppose, for example. the government was to buy one
thousand "green" cars from General Motors, guaranteed to
run on sunlight and water if you don't mind a top speed
of four miles per hour, a range of ten miles in the dark
or in cloudy weather, and tendency to fall apart after a
year, able to carry a maximum of one adult, one child,
two small dwarf children, and a small handbag of
luggage, at one billion dollars each. Then our GDP would
magically increase by a trillion dollars, due to the
amazingly wonderful productivity at General motors.

But, of course, this would not really measure
productivity, but waste and madness.

GDP is only meaningful and well defined in terms of arms
length transactions measured against a standard of well
defined and stable value.  Government fiat money is not
a standard of well defined and stable value, and
government transactions are not arms length, thus heavy
handed government interventions to "stimulate" the
economy are apt to "stimulate" the numbers rather than
the reality.  Because government transactions are not
arms length, they often fail to reflect production.  If
the government pays someone a billion dollars, it rarely
means that that someone has produced a billion dollars
worth of value.  More likely it means that dollars are
suddenly worth less than they are supposed to be worth.

Thus, for example, much of the supposed increase in GDP
came from the "cash for clunkers" program, which in
reality reduced GDP by destroying value.

Hence employment and living standards continue to fall,
while "GDP" rises.

The "cash for clunkers" program paid people to destroy perfectly good
cars, which was clearly destruction, not production, yet because the
government was paying, the GDP calculation assumes that destruction
was a benefit, since it values actions at what is paid for them.

If the government paid a hundred million people a hundred dollars each
to each stick their heads into buckets of water, while hitting their
toes with a hammer, this also would be counted as increasing GDP by
ten billion dollars.  Since the activity is paid for, it is supposedly
creating value.

If instead of paying people to destroy good cars, the government had
paid them to hit their toes with a hammer, the statistics would have
shown the same purported increase in GDP, but we would not have
suffered a real loss of cars.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Rod Speed wrote:
*Borrowing from Peter to pay Paul*

How does that work with your personal credit cards, you do realize that
you have to pay the bills you just transferred from one credit card to
another....

 You avoided the TOTAL economic Apocalypse for today, the Dollar hasn't
totally collapsed, but that doesn't mean it's not a case where you
kicked the can a year down the road.  We are still crashing, just in
slow motion.

Socialism will not fix this economy and Obama is Forcing us into Socialism.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/7/09 10:19 PM Rod Speed said the following:

Trade barriers are increasing.  What will light the fire of a trade war?
  The government stimulus is very inefficient and harming.  Just like
what Hoover and FDR did.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
*Anarcissie* wrote:

Its clearly stopping quite a bit of the loss of
jobs, most obviously with the car industry.

Plenty is ALWAYS being produced.

The GDP has just increased because of what is being produced.

Thats not what modern first world economys are about anymore.

And a hell of a lot more than just insurance too.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald:

On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 12:49:59 -0800 (PST), "*Anarcissie*"

The theory underlying the AAA rating on securitized mortgages was that
only a small proportion of mortgages would default.  Only a small
proportion of mortgages in Palo Alto west of the freeway have
defaulted.

That is undeniably true.  With or without affirmative action we would
have had a bubble then a crash, and a lot of people would have been
hurt.  But without affirmative action, we would not have had nearly so
many defaults.  Without affirmative action, we would still have had a
real estate crisis, but not a financial crisis.

The crisis began with a run on the repo market in 2005 November, which
was motivated by the realization that AAA ratings on securities were
fraudulent.  The vast majority of this fraudulently rated paper was
securitized mortgages.  If mortgages were only defaulting at the rates
we see in lily white and asian suburbs, if they were securitizing
mortgages from Palo Alto west of the freeway, that paper would have
deserved its rating.

Now clearly, politicized AAA ratings were a problem that was going to
explode sooner or later, and mortgage securities poisoned by
affirmative action are not the only toxic asset class causing
problems.  Chances are that in a few years we are going to get another
explosion over another asset class - but equally clearly, politicized
AAA ratings are primarily given to the beneficiaries of politics, thus
if the market had not blown up over affirmative action lending, it
would have blown up a few years later over something equally political
- and probably is going to do so in a few years - most likely
something to do with defined benefit pension plans, with the UAW at
the center of the next financial crisis to the same extent as ACORN
was at the center of this one.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Anarcissie wrote

You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote:

What unbelievable racism. Maybe - despite banks essentially helping you lie to
get houses - the non-whites are defaulting less often because they are living
within their means more often?

No, affirmative action did not cause the housing meltdown.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote:

But the real bottom generally dont have mortgages, they rent instead.

Just because its got the most recent mortgages in the bay area, cretin.

That ALWAYS happens when a bubble bursts, you get the
most defaults with the most recent mortages, because
they are under water quickest when a bubble bursts.

Aw, poor widdle diddums...

More of your bare faced pathological lying. .

CRA loans DIDNT DEFAULT AT A HIGHER RATE THAN NON
CRA LOANS you silly little flagrantly racist plathological liar.

More of your bare faced pathological lying. .

Are you actually stupid enough to believe that no white ever got a sub prime loan ?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever. HORDES of
flippers and those who had just recently got a mortgage, who were
white, DID  DEFAULT, you silly little flagrantly racist plathological liar.

More of your bare faced pathological lying. .

The main problem with the data is JUST the massive boom in spivs and
con men writing mortgages who arent accountable to govt and so THAT
data isnt available to govt, you silly little flagrantly racist plathological liar.

Because hordes of them poured into the country and needed somewhere to live, fuckwit.

Pity it didnt, you silly little flagrantly racist plathological liar.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote:

And you get to like that or lump it.

They dont need to bother to print it anymore, fool.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel, fuckwit.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

The rate was no higher than it was with non CRA loans.


text:
James A. Donald wrote:

Ah, well that's better then. I'm slightly out of date,
which is an easy thing to fix. Nonetheless, we've had nearly a
year of steep deflation.

Yep. We'll see, though.

U6 is 17.5%. Which is shocking.

But there are lags. So we must wait.


text:
James A. Donald wrote:

Have a look at the price of houses sometime, fool.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

Pity about the price of houses, which just happen to
be BY FAR the biggest cost that most of us incur, fool.

Followed very closely by interest costs.

Which even someone as stupid as you should have
noticed aint been this low in a hell of a long time.

Yeah, yeah, its those damned jews conspiring in smoke filled rooms to shaft us all...

Another pig ignorant lie. Hordes have swapped their clunkers for new cars, fool.

Hordes have signed up for HUD houses, fool.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant rabid racist fantasys.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant rabid racist fantasys.

The reason for the difference is because the household survey is a very poor measure of unemployment, fuckwit.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant rabid racist fantasys.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant rabid racist fantasys.

0.4% aint anything even remotely resembling anything like soaring, you silly little pathological liar.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Unemployment ALWAYS lags the GDP, fuckwit.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant rabid racist fantasys.

So stupid that it cant even manage to grasp that the difference between U5 and U6 are EMPLOYED.

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed pig ignorant rabid racist fantasys.

Most economist dont have any masters, you silly little pig ignorant clown.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Yadda wrote

Everyone discounts your shit and lies.

Not a shred of data cited by you.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself, eh ?


text:
Phlip wrote

Nope, he's right.

The real poor in modern first world countrys are those whose
entire income is welfare or those who dont bother to avail
themselves of the welfare available like the 'homeless' etc.

None of those pay any income tax.

Nope, that was the tax being discussed. No one attempts
to create jobs by cutting sales taxes or excise dutys.

No one attempts to create jobs by those either.


text:
Phlip wrote:

You don't seem to understand that the INCOME TAX (I very well understand
your play on words above -- let's not toy with this matter, child) does
not tax AT ALL the lower income brackets after typical exclusions are
applied.

This reform occurred in the Clinton tax package. In fact, our lower
income brackets are taxed less than almost anyplace else in the world.
McWorkers in Denmark actually PAY income taxes. Not in the US.

And B> you sin by omitting the sales taxes and all the

There's no sin there at all. We were talking about INCOME taxes, not
taxes in the generic sense. I am well aware of the rest of the tax
burdens extant in society, more than you, I expect.

JG


text:
James A. Donald wrote

I know.

It stopped being wealthy after that, fuckwit.

Have a look at the unemployment rate sometime.

Have a look at the unemployment rate sometime.

Have a look at the unemployment rate sometime.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/7/09 10:31 PM James A. Donald said the following:

Great post.  Employment isn't employment.  Small biz unemployment is
most likely accelerating.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

Wrong. It always takes some time for a stimulus to do that.

It first hikes the GDP and that has already happened.

And it also prevents more unemployment, most obviously with the
cash for clunkers part of the stimulus that saw car sales recover
quite a bit and so avoided more layoffs in the car industry etc.

But not falling as fast as it would do without the stimulus.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

The unemployment rate has only just got into double digits and
its taken a couple of years to do that. Thats neither far nor fast,
you silly little pathological liar, and nothing even remotely
resembling anything like whats happened in Argentina.

So you lied, we did see the rate of increase in
unemployment fall,  you silly little pathological liar.

But better than in quite a few months before that.

By those still working being more productive, stupid.

Many of them do that because they dont want to be the next to be sacked.

Dont need to be a lot more productive to
see the increase in GDP that has been seen.

Wrong, as always. That always does put one
hell of a bomb under those they dont fire.

And they ALWAYS do when the least productive are fired.

Wrong, as always. The increase in GDP wasnt that
dramatic, productivity always increase by that sort
of amount when you start firing the least productive.

With the car industry particularly, quite a bit of the
increase in productivity just came from not needing
to have so many on reduced hours as well.

Wrong, as always. Plenty like China had much higher
unemployment rates for entirely different reasons.

Nothing even remotely resembling anything
like a plunge, you silly little pathological liar.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. Quite a bit of it came from
the cash for clunkers program, you silly little pathological liar.

Pity Obummer hasnt done that, you silly little pathological liar.

Gone blind yet ?

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

What they actually did was to have a cash for clunkers program
that not only replaced some gas guzzling dinosaurs, but also
provided real work for those producing the replacements.

And that is precisely what is done.

Wrong, as always.

Dont need to be. What matters is that they happened
when that GDP involves quite a bit of what govt does.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie.

And that doesnt add a billion bucks to the GDP, you pig ignorant clown.

Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant fantasyland.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Its no different to boom times when consumers feel
free to replace their current car with a new one, fool.

That ALWAYS happens in ANY recession, fool.

And WW2 went much further and blew away vastly more hardware
and lives and that massive hike in GDP was real ANYWAY.

So was WW2 in spades, fool.

Its not an assumption, its a fact, fool.

Wrong, as always.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

True in spades of WW2, fool.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

We see the same real loss of cars in boom times, fool.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote

*The rolling stone gathers no moss*

Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed the difference
between personal credit cards and the national accounts.

And they realise that the cost of another great depression is MUCH
greater than what has been spent on the bailouts and stimulus.

Forever actually.

Hasnt even partially collapsed either.

Avoiding another great depression is a lot more than kicking the can a year down the road.

You wouldnt know what a real crash was if one bit you on you lard arse.

The unemployment rate has only just got into double digits.

There's been socialism ever since independance, stupid.

Even HongKong before it was handed back to china had socialism too.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Yadda wrote

Only very marginally, for Obummer's home town apes.

Nothing, you watch. Essentially because the US needs the chinese to buy US treasurys.

Yes.

Nope.

Nothing like, actually.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

Yes, and that was terminally stupid because the bubble was
absolutely guaranteed to burst sometime and see a massive hike
in the defaults due to the terminally stupid non recourse system.

Because they are much older mortgages, fuckwit.

Its ALWAYS the most recent mortgages that default at the highest rate,
because those will be under water much quicker when a bubble bursts.

It isnt funny money so much as the interest rates. While ever interest
rates are very low, lots of flippers will try flipping when the risk of the
bubble bursting is minimal when the down payment is trivial and when
the US uses the terminally stupid non recourse system. Thats absolutely
guaranteed to produce lots of flipping, particularly when the stock market
isnt booming.

And when all those bundled and securitized mortgages got AAA+ ratings
that they didnt even come close to qualifying for, thats what completely
imploded the entire world financial system, and that would not have
happened if they had not got those ratings. We would have just seen
yet another bubble bursting, and that could not have completely imploded
the entire world financial system. The worst that could have produced
was another S&L style fiasco with quite a few lenders going bust etc.

That is a bare faced lie. The default rate on CRA loans was no  higher
than on non CRA loans, you silly little flagrantly racist pathological liar.

Wrong, as always. The default rate on CRA loans was no  higher than
on non CRA loans, you silly little flagrantly racist pathological liar.

Like hell it did.

Another bare faced pig ignorant lie. That came MUCH later.

No fraud involved, just terminal stupidity. There is no way that the ratings
agencys would deliberately fuck over their reputations so comprehensively.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Yes.

The default rate on CRA loans was no  higher than on non
CRA loans, you silly little flagrantly racist pathological liar.

But they were the only ones that could completely implode the entire world financial system.

The others could not, essentially because the bulk of the others werent securitized
and bundled and given AAA+ ratings to anything like the same extent.

Nope, because they wont get that rating again, and
so there wont be the same market for them again.

More of your bare faced flagrantly racist pathological lying.

More of your bare faced flagrantly racist pathological lying.

It never did, you silly little flagrantly racist pathological liar.

Even if EVERY CRA loan had defaulted, and they didnt in fact default
at a higher rate than non CRA loans, there were never enough of them
to completely implode the entire world financial system. The worst that
could have produced was higher costs for non CRA loans.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

We've seen just TWO complete implosions of the entire world financial system in a century.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

We've seen just TWO complete implosions of the entire world financial system in a century.

Nope, they dont get AAA+ ratings that they dont come even
close to qualifying for and there is no bubble with those either.

The worst those going bang can do is fuck over those who are depending on
them for a decent income in retirement, they cant possibly completely implode
the entire world financial system, esssentially because no one is actually stupid
enough to bundle and securitized those and give them AAA+ ratings.

Only in your pathetic little flagrantly racist pathological liar fantasyland.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

Rod Speed wrote

James A. Donald wrote

Rod Speed wrote

How do you know this when you don't have the numbers?

And if it was true, the government would not be hiding the numbers.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/7/09 11:54 PM Rod Speed said the following:

Economic activity is not linear.  I expect job losses to spike in
November and December after factoring out seasonal hiring for holidays.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 16:54:33 +1100, "Rod Speed"

It is improbable that GDP has risen when employment continues to fall.

Much of the supposed rise in GDP is the government paying people to
destroy cars and houses, which due to creative accounting is treated
as creating value, rather than destroying value.

Makework is not recovery:  For GDP to genuinely rise due to people
working in the car industry, we should have more cars, whereas in
reality "cash for clunkers" means we have fewer cars.  Fewer cars,
thus real production is less, not more.

To take an extreme hypothetical example, suppose the government
purchased all cars at one hundred thousand dollars per car, and dumped
them at sea.  Then this would similarly "stimulate", just like "cash
for clunkers" only more so - but we would have no cars!  Official GDP
figures would be higher, a lot higher, but actual GDP would be lower,
a lot lower.

It is not a recovery unless people are engaged in work producing what
other people want, and as a result of people doing useful work that
other people want done, people have more stuff.  The "recovery" is
produced by government "stimulus" actions that cause people to have
less stuff and less prospect of getting a job.

The only stimulus that actually stimulates is tax cuts that are
expected to be lasting.

How do you know?  It is falling a lot faster than the government
predicted would happen.

Under the circumstances, the required sudden and substantial rise in
productivity is clearly improbable.

Rather, the explanation is that it is easier to destroy stuff than to
create stuff, and the government is paying people to destroy stuff and
counting that as creating stuff, thereby magically and instantly
producing fake rise in productivity.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Rod Speed wrote:

Yes, National accounts are controlled by different assholes and will
look like some third world country when they go sour.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote

Only by pig ignorant fool.

Cash for clunkers has to increase the GDP if everything else doesnt change, fool.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/8/09 3:48 AM James A. Donald said the following:

It is very hard to find micro numbers for mortgage loans.  But alll you
had to do was drive around an inner city 2000-2010 to see what is
happening.  It is getting worse.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote:

The numbers are available.

It is true, as can be seen from the numbers.

The govt isnt hiding the numbers.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Yadda wrote:

No one ever said it was.

Bet you end up with egg all over your silly little face, as always.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.

That ALWAYS happens in ANY recession or depression, fool.

Yes, just like the massive rise in the GDP during WW2 was in spades.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.

That happened IN SPADES in WW2 fuckwit.

That was an absolutely CLASSIC example of Keynesian deficit spending, stupid.

Wrong, as always. WW2 was make work in spades, fuckwit.

Wrong, as always. We saw PRECISELY the same effect in boom
times with hordes replacing their perfectly viable cars with new cars.

Wrong, as always.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.

Yes, because they would mostly spend that $100K, fuckwit.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.

They would just buy new cars with part of that $100K, fuckwit.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.

The GDP aint the total assets, fool.

Yes, WW2 did see a lot of real assets wiped out
AND IT MASSIVELY HIKED THE GDP AS WELL.

That is precisely what happened with cash for clunkers, most do want new cars, fool.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.

Its still GDP if they replace clunkers with new cars, fool.

Just like WW2 was in spades.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.

They have just as many cars when they replace a clunker with a new car, fool.

AND they have higher value assets too.

They have MORE prospect of getting a job in car industry, fool.

No one said a word about lasting, fool.

If a stimulus improves consumer confidence that they
arent about to lose their current job, THAT is lasting, fool.

Its obvious with the car industry and the housing industry alone.

Any destruction of clunkers or surplus houses MUST increase
the employment prospects in those industrys, fool.

Predictions are completely irrelevant. They are always very difficult to get right.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, EVER.

While ever those with the lowest productivity are fired, that MUST increase
the productivity of those who have not yet got fired, just because  they
mostly do want to ensure that they aint gunna be next to be fired.

And even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that those
involved in the production of the new cars that replace the clunkers
are likely to be able to work more paid hours than they would otherwise
be the case with fewer buying new cars with no cash for clunkers program.

The housing industry in spades.

Yes, and that worked fine in WW2 and completely wiped out the great depression unemployment.

Just like they did during WW2 in spades.

Just like they did during WW2 in spades.

Taint fake, its real, just like it was during WW2 in spades.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote

They've already gone sour and dont look a bit like any third world country.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Rod Speed wrote:

Government money was what made it possible and the government money was
printed or borrowed and either of those costs you money it costs you GDP
printing and borrowing doesn't create GDP.

If it had been actual tax receipts I think it might be a wash as they
say. But being printed and or borrowed it is a negative GDP item.

to simplify it for you, if I borrow $1,000, my personal GDP didn't just
rise $1,000

if I then use it to buy a tool from my garage, I still have no GDP from
it. I still owe the interest and that is a negative GDP.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

Rod Speed wrote

James A. Donald wrote

Rod Speed wrote

James A. Donald wrote

Rod Speed wrote

Then produce them, or defaults by race, or any analogous
number.  Any numbers that would shed light on the impact
of this ruinous policy, however indirectly, are being
suppressed, which is a pretty good indication of what
caused the crisis.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
[snip]

Without looking it up please tell me the definition of non-linear, then
explain the significance.

I will be holding to a gentleman's bet.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Beam Me Up Scotty wrote

You quite sure you aint one of the rocket scientist fools ?

You quite sure you aint one of the rocket scientist fools ?

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

If its spent on cash for clunkers it sure does, fool.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

If you borrow $1K and spend that on a new car, the production
of that new car does indeed add to the nation's GDP, fuckwit.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/8/09 5:03 PM James A. Donald said the following:

post some links.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
James A. Donald wrote

Already did.

Irrelevant to what is being discussed.

Cant be, we have the numbers.

Only in your pathetic little drug crazed pathological liar fantasyland.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Yadda wrote:

Go and fuck yourself, again.

The only thing you are holding is your dick, as always.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
on 11/8/09 6:40 PM Rod Speed said the following:

May you get caught in the F(x+y) <> F(x) + F(y) and become a pauper who
can no longer gain Internet access.


subject: Re: 10.2%

text:
Yadda wrote

Taint gunna happen. The only effect the GFC had was to get me into cash before it happened.

And even if I did end up a pauper, I can just wifi for free anytime.


author: Ron

subject: Re: The perfect foil creates the perfect setup again!

text:
In article <V1gEd.2517$[email]>,
 "rick etter" <[email]> wrote:

I am not responsible for the outcome of your choices. When a producer of
food kills to accomplish there goals they are responsible for the
actions not each and every possible outcome.

I give one animal an antibiotic and it lives. I give an animal and
anitbiotic and it dies. I have performed the same ACT in both cases. The
outcomes are independent of my actions. My actions are coincidental and
not causal.


author: rick etter

text:
"Ron" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
===========================
Very good fool.   No one ever claimed that.  You, however are responsible
for *your* choices.

 When a producer of
=====================
Tap, tap, tap..   Keep telling yourself that pansy-boy....


text:
In article <hZjEd.2880$[email]>,
 "rick etter" <[email]> wrote:

Of course, you did. The outcome of a dead animal from a farmers action
of killing is holding me accountable for the outcome of their action.

I guess you do get to feel special and important thinking that what you
do is causing farmers and growers to kill animals. That's quite a feat
there.


subject: Long admits that "anarcho" capitalism is not anarchism

text:
In article [email], 2-100-1![email] (Lazarus Long) writes:

In relation to group activities. So what is Long moaning about? That
under anarchism instead of a workplace being run by an unelected
boss, it is run by an elected management committee, under direct
control from those who elected them.

So, Long seems to be suggesting that an unelected boss giving orders
from the top down is more anarchist that an elected committee subject
to recall by those who elected it.

What logic!

<snip>

So Long thinks that they should be appointed from above? Seems like it.

This is funny, Karl Marx said the same thing against Bakunin! So are
there two or more levels of control? Well, on the one hand there is
the day to day administration tasks of coordinating joint activity
which would be impossible to have mass votes on all the time. So,
what happens? The workforce elects someone to coordinate admin tasks.
However, the workforce decides the policy of their association and
can kick out any elected manager who starts acting like a boss.

Its funny, but Long seems to think that managers appointed "from
above" by the owners is more anarchistic than elections from
below. Funny that.

Funny...Long has no idea what he is talking about.

<snip>

Yawn! The "free market" makes a mockery of free agreements. Funny that
Long seems to think that "free agreement" is just an idea of "anarcho"
capitalism and no one else.

Well, well, well. I am apparently a follower of Marx! Thats a surprise.
Actually, if anyone is following in Marx's footsteps its Long. All his
nonsense about self-management being a hierarchy comes straight from
Karl Marx himself.

<snip>

You've changed your tune. In a previous post you stated that "anarcho"
capitalism would come about once the state was *privatised*. In other
words, Long "abolishes" the state by calling it something else!

So, does capitalism need some sort of state? Yes, in order to ensure
that workers follow orders. As Long admitted elsewhere, the interests
of workers and owners are *not* in harmony. This means that if there
is a strike, then the capitalists will have to turn to force to ensure
that their "property rights" are protected. This can either be a
public state or a private state. But a state is still needed.

<snip>

Really? Wow, since Long is obviously so well read in anarchist theory
his statement *must* be true!

Nothing like insults, eh? Long must be pretty sad to think this counts
as rational argument. Funny that Long tries to "win" arguments by
making comments about the nature of his oponents and their ideas.

I read your post last week when you stated that "anarcho"-capitalism
would come about when the miminalist state was privatised. Tell me, Long,
do you read your own posts?

I have read Rothbard, he makes the same point. Namely that the functions of
the state can be privatised, but not abolished.

So, according to Long, by privatising the functions of the state, the
state is "no more"? Nope, the state is just privatised.

And I love his "rational" argument - "Nope."

<snip>

Nope, just stating a fact. In "anarcho" capitalism, you are free to follow
the (capitalist) law code and work within the (capitalist) economy. In
other words, "anarcho" capitalists have no objection to you being a
capitalist! How generous.

ROTFL, for this is what Long states. By establishing a monopoly (the "general
libertarian law code"), then a choice will be allowed! How lucky we are!

Funny, but I don't see any capitalist "communities" rising on their
own. They all seemed to be based on state intervention and the stealing
of land from those who initially held it. Then the thieves create
a "general law code" which protects their initial theft and the continued
theft of others labour.

<snip>

Sure. To quote Ayn Rand, "there can be no such thing as the right to
unnrestricted freedom of speech (or of action) on someone else's
property" [_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, p. 258]

In other words, you have no rights on another's property. This means
that on private property your rights are eliminated and only the
owner's count. In the context of capital, this means that those
employed by a company have no rights, including the most important
one, namely free speech.

Iain


author: P. Marks

subject: Re: For David Friedman

text:
On Wed, 26 Jun 1996, Stavros N. Karageorgis wrote:

Private enterprise (at least of the corporate hired manager variety) gives
far more (about 3-4 times more money) to organisations that want more
government spending and regulations than it gives to organisations that
want less government spending and regulations.

And then there is the matter of government subsidies. For some reason
government money does not tend to go to organisations like the Ludwig Von
Mises Institute or the Independent Institute. Corps do not like such
"extreme" groups either - they prefer more moderate ones.

However (as I said above) even if one does not count all the government
money and includes even the most moderate "free market" groups the corps
prefer the establishment (more spending more regulations) groups by at
least 3 to 1 in spending.

Paul Marks.


subject: Re: Long admits that "anarcho" capitalism is not anarchism

text:
(Lazarus Long) writes:

[email] ( "i.m.mckay") wrote:

But in your system, everything is a group activity that affects
everyone.  If someone decides to feed a pig corn that affects anyone
who might want to eat bread and anyone who might want to eat pork.

Hence all decisions about everything have to be made by a central
committee.

And this of course, we saw in the Catalonian revolution.  Power being
rapidly centralized.  I presume this was because decisions made by one
local committee frequently conflicted with decisions made by another
local committee.

If law and justice is in the hands of many diverse people, no monopoly
of force, the state has most certainly been abolished.  If the whole
economy is in supervised by the economics committee, the state has not
only not been abolished, but is vastly more powerful.

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.

http://www.jim.com/jamesd/      James A. Donald       [email]


author: K MacLeod

text:
i.m.mckay ([email]) wrote:

[much deleted]

: > cc> So "vote libertarian" and see the state "wither away"? Nope, vote
: > cc> libertarian and
: > cc> see the state privatised. And the function of this private state? To
: > cc> enforce private power -  so bye, bye freedom of speech, assembly and
: > cc> other basic rights, because you have no rights on other people's
: > cc> property (for example, in your workplace).
: >

[Lazarus Long asked:]

: >     Care to show where libertarians or anarcho-capitalists have
: >     advocated the elimination of individual rights?

: Sure. To quote Ayn Rand, "there can be no such thing as the right to
: unnrestricted freedom of speech (or of action) on someone else's
: property" [_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, p. 258]

: In other words, you have no rights on another's property. This means
: that on private property your rights are eliminated and only the
: owner's count. In the context of capital, this means that those
: employed by a company have no rights, including the most important
: one, namely free speech.

This is not what Rand says!

There is a big difference between not having unrestricted freedom of
speech or action on someone else's property, and having *no rights*.

I don't have the right to walk into Freedom Books, pull out a stack of
copies of _Socialist Worker_, and start shouting 'So-o-oshilist Wurkir!
Get yir anti-Tory paper he-e-re!'

That doesn't mean I have *no rights* on the premises of that venerable
anarchist institution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken MacLeod            | '... in the beginning all the world was America ...'
[email] | John Locke, Second Treatise of Government
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


author: Lazarus Long

subject: Iain desperately attempts to defend his pseudo-economic theory

text:
[email] pontificated in a message to All:

cc> In relation to group activities. So what is Long moaning about? That
cc> under anarchism instead of a workplace being run by an unelected
cc> boss, it is run by an elected management committee, under direct
cc> control from those who elected them.

cc> So, Long seems to be suggesting that an unelected boss giving orders
cc> from the top down is more anarchist that an elected committee
cc> subject to recall by those who elected it.

    Just pointing out that having a hierarchy of committees sounds
    just like a state to me.

cc> What logic!

   Beats your lack of logic...and knowledge of economics.

cc> So Long thinks that they should be appointed from above? Seems like
cc> it.

   Nope. Putting words into my mouth? You tried that with James
   Donald in your specious attempt to justify murder by the
   anarchists. It fails here as it did there.

cc> This is funny, Karl Marx said the same thing against Bakunin! So are
cc> there two or more levels of control? Well, on the one hand there is
cc> the day to day administration tasks of coordinating joint activity
cc> which would be impossible to have mass votes on all the time. So,
cc> what happens? The workforce elects someone to coordinate admin
cc> tasks. However, the workforce decides the policy of their
cc> association and can kick out any elected manager who starts acting
cc> like a boss.

  Just like a modern corporation where shareholder dissatisfaction
  results in unpopular and destructive bosses being removed. Just
  like the local shipyard in my town. In the middle of a labour
  strike, the boss was summarily removed by the directors
  ...strike settled within a week, after dragging out for months.

 So your going to run these companies on the same lines as
 corporations.

[more of Iain's misattributions deleted]

cc> Funny...Long has no idea what he is talking about.

  By the lack of defense from iain, I would say I hit the mark.

cc> Yawn! The "free market" makes a mockery of free agreements. Funny
cc> that Long seems to think that "free agreement" is just an idea of
cc> "anarcho" capitalism and no one else.
cc>

    And Iain retreats to sloganeering rather than counter the
    argument. (yawn)

cc> Well, well, well. I am apparently a follower of Marx! Thats a
cc> surprise. Actually, if anyone is following in Marx's footsteps its
cc> Long. All his nonsense about self-management being a hierarchy comes
cc> straight from Karl Marx himself.

   Actually you are more like the fundamentalist TV preachers who
   interpret the bible to suit their needs...you take what you
   will of Marx and when the inconsistencies rear their
   heads...you jump in with the disclaimer.

cc> You've changed your tune. In a previous post you stated that
cc> "anarcho" capitalism would come about once the state was
cc> *privatised*. In other words, Long "abolishes" the state by calling
cc> it something else!

    That's right...I didn't change anything.. just eliminate the
    state. You can call a property owner a state if you
    like...However, most people with a clue about economics and
    sociology will recognise your lack of knowledge.

cc> So, does capitalism need some sort of state? Yes, in order to ensure
cc> that workers follow orders. As Long admitted elsewhere, the
cc> interests of workers and owners are *not* in harmony. This means
cc> that if there is a strike, then the capitalists will have to turn to
cc> force to ensure that their "property rights" are protected. This can
cc> either be a public state or a private state. But a state is still
cc> needed.

    It will? Sorry Iain, but again you resort to demonstrating
    that you have never studied free market economics.
    No state needed. IF a contract ends and the workers decide
    that they want to make demands that the owner is not prepared
    to meet, he doesn't have to have a state use force. He just
    puts out a call that that the current contract has expired and
    that he is offering work at certain rate of pay..and hires
    those who accept.

cc> Really? Wow, since Long is obviously so well read in anarchist
cc> theory his statement *must* be true!

    Based on what you and the other theologians have been posting.

cc> Nothing like insults, eh? Long must be pretty sad to think this
cc> counts as rational argument. Funny that Long tries to "win"
cc> arguments by making comments about the nature of his oponents and
cc> their ideas.

    Where is the international support from the workers? Where are
    the massive overthrowings of Capitalism?
    As for making comments...just using the same tactics as you
    have used. IF you can't cut it...better go back to the cafe..

cc> I read your post last week when you stated that "anarcho"-capitalism
cc> would come about when the miminalist state was privatised. Tell me,
cc> Long, do you read your own posts?

    When the functions that currently are monopolised by the state
    are placed into the marketplace and competition. I forget that
    I am dealing with a functional illiterate and must provide
    every last detail.

cc> I have read Rothbard, he makes the same point. Namely that the
cc> functions of the state can be privatised, but not abolished.

cc> So, according to Long, by privatising the functions of the state,
cc> the state is "no more"? Nope, the state is just privatised.

   Since the functions are placed into the market with
   competition, there is no state. Just a market.

cc> Nope, just stating a fact. In "anarcho" capitalism, you are free to
cc> follow the (capitalist) law code and work within the (capitalist)
cc> economy. In other words, "anarcho" capitalists have no objection to
cc> you being a capitalist! How generous.

     Poor Iain. How did you get into University with your
     illiteracy? I said and you should have been able to pick this
     up, that competing systems would be fine with
     anarcho-capitalists.

cc> Funny, but I don't see any capitalist "communities" rising on their
cc> own. They all seemed to be based on state intervention and the
cc> stealing of land from those who initially held it. Then the thieves
cc> create a "general law code" which protects their initial theft and
cc> the continued theft of others labour.

   They didn't in the beginning..free market systems did develop
   and are usually suppressed by the state.

cc> Sure. To quote Ayn Rand, "there can be no such thing as the right to
cc> unnrestricted freedom of speech (or of action) on someone else's
cc> property" [_Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal_, p. 258]

    That's Rand. Who was not enamoured of Libertarians or
    anarcho-capitalists. Sorry kid, but you have to read more than
    the dust jackets to understand an author.

cc> In other words, you have no rights on another's property. This means
cc> that on private property your rights are eliminated and only the
cc> owner's count. In the context of capital, this means that those
cc> employed by a company have no rights, including the most important
cc> one, namely free speech.

    Whereas Iain, because of his inherent greed, hates the idea of
    someone having anything and not allowing Iain to steal it. I
    bet your mates hide their wallets with you around.

Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html

[email](fastest)

... After the next expresso...the revolution begins! You go first.


author: Gordon Fitch

subject: Re: For David Friedman

text:
Stavros N. Karageorgis wrote:
|> ...
|> What is the evidence that this was indeed the case? The idea that a
|> pro-capitalism, or pro-market stance amongst economists has been a 'distinct
|> professional liability' is counter-intuitive and needs to be demonstrated
|> empirically.

"P. Marks" <[email]>:
| Private enterprise (at least of the corporate hired manager variety) gives
| far more (about 3-4 times more money) to organisations that want more
| government spending and regulations than it gives to organisations that
| want less government spending and regulations.
|
| And then there is the matter of government subsidies. For some reason
| government money does not tend to go to organisations like the Ludwig Von
| Mises Institute or the Independent Institute. Corps do not like such
| "extreme" groups either - they prefer more moderate ones.
|
| However (as I said above) even if one does not count all the government
| money and includes even the most moderate "free market" groups the corps
| prefer the establishment (more spending more regulations) groups by at
| least 3 to 1 in spending.

Those who own and operate large corporations tend to want
stable societies, economies, and, yes, markets, and many of
them see social democratic policies (paid for mostly by the
workers) as the way to achieve them.  The latest evidence of
this I recall seeing was a report by the _Wall_Street_Journal_
which noted that large corporations had weighed in very
heavily on the public-school side in the California vouchers
referendum.  This is not, however, an anti-capitalist
stance. The corporate elites are quite happy with capitalism;
they just don't want to repeat the disorders of the late
19th and early 20th centuries for the sake of purity of
theory.


author: Stavros N. Karageorgis

subject: Re: Iain desperately attempts to defend his pseudo-economic theory

text:
In article <[email]> 2-100-1![email] (Lazarus Long) writes:
<snip>

//Can I ask you a question, Lazarus? How much knowledge of economics do you
have, and how have you concretely demonstrated that you have it in this forum?
In addition, why does each side have to accuse the other of not having logic?
If two people start from different premises, which you and lain most certainly
do, following through with the most pristine and unassailable logic will
perforce lead you to different conclusions. It is probably impossible for
people to rationally discuss 'first principles'. Adherence to such first
principles is as much, if not more, a non-rational decision, as it is a
deliberative rational one. But, a debate about THEM, certainly beats this
incessant back and forth that promises to continue until either one of both of
you get bored with it. There is no 'magic bullet', an unassailable
set of philosophical tenets, and a methodology, that once acquired is the
general key (the passe-partout) of all knowledge and all analysis. You seem to
be much more committed to such a view as lain is, but then again maybe I am
biased against you. In any case, you guys can't even agree on basic
definitions of concepts or on what constitute 'relevant facts'. How can you
possibly have a rational debate? Yours is an individualist libertarian
anarchism and lain and gary's is a communitarian anarchism. The most fruitful
way for the two sides to critique the other is by doing 'internal critiques'
of the other, whereby you accept the premises of the opposing paradigm and
seek to show how it is inconsistent in its more concrete applications, or is
logically self-contradictory even in its basic premises. It is a logical
impossibility to defeat a competing paradigm from within your paradigm. It is
like trying to convice a potato-lover that they are 'wrong' from the point of
view of you, a rice-lover. The result is a lot of noise, a lot of
name--calling, and NOTHING to show for it.

I doubt you will heed my advice, but be that as it may, I am offering it
anyway . . .

<snip>

//Whereas you have THE correct knowledge of Marx and can apply it correctly
and demonstrate the inconsistencies? Do you, as well, have the CORRECT
interpretation of libertarian texts and can always apply them consistently?

Many of your 'debates' center around the definition of the term 'state'. Why
don't you offer yours, and the empirical criteria by which something can or
cannot be categorized as a state? In my view, every social system (small or
large) has to fulfill 'state-like functions' but it does not necessarily have
a differentiated set of institutions which specialize in fulfiling those
functions, and a differentiated set of roles that pertain to that function. It
makes a difference if only certain individuals have the right to have those
'roles', and it makes an even bigger difference if in a particular social
system some members derive their livelihood solely or primarily from
performing those roles. It also makes a difference what the process of
'acquiring' those roles involves. Is it by consent of those who are going to
be subject to the decision of the above, or is it by 'right'. Why don't you
guys debate these issues, with civility and calm. This could be very useful
both to you and to the rest of us.//

//Since I qualify by both criteria, I can tell you that I recognise no such
lack of knowledge. The owners of a company fulfil, by right, the functional
imperative of 'system goal setting and attainment' of the company social
system. States, as differentiated sets of institutions are generally
recognized as fulfiling those functions par excellence.  In capitalism, or
better under a system following your own libertarian tenets (so that you
don't say I associate you with any existing system) the employees of a firm,
for example, have no 'right' to those functions. They belong with the owners
of the company who MAY delegate them, at their discretion, and at will, to
some subset of those employees, or even all of them (the above is
unassailable; it follows strictly from Nozick). So it is neither ignorant nor
wrong to claim that internally a private firm operates like a state, and that
legitimate authority over it is, by right, according to the tenets of
libertarianism, at the discretion of and at the will of its owners. Private
companies, firms, are NOT markets. This much was clearly stated and argued
convincingly by Ronald Coase, who will never be accused of being anything but
a devotee of free markets, and libertarian principles.//

//Lazarus, how will disputes over contracts,  before they expire, be settled?
What if the workers decide that they do not want to continue abiding by the
terms of the contract, and engage in a sit-down strike. Or, what if the
employer decides that he/she is not going to let them leave after the work-day
ends, or that he/she is not going to pay the agreed-upon contractual wage? Do
you or do you not need a third party, beholden to neither party, to adjudicate
those disputes and enforce the rule of law, and the sanctity of both parties'
property rights, and the sanctity of the contract? How do you not have the war
of all against all without a 'neutral' third party to establish, enforce and
guarantee property rights? How will you prevent and punish malfeasance and
opportunism by all, without constant strife and eventual blood-shed without a
vigilant and capable to enforce third party? How will you prevent a bigger
'guy' from taking over your property ignoring your protestations that you have
rights over it, and asserting that no, 'he' does? How will you enforce, in a
state-less world, voluntary agreements and contracts?//

//Where is the massive support for libertarianism, as well? Where are the
massive overthrowings of States? Both of you are involved in a political
project. You are trying to convince others, enough others, so that you can
have that 'international support' and the 'massive overthrowings'. In the
process of trying to 'sell' your ideas, both of you, like any competent
salesman, claim that there is already massive support, that what you are
proposing is a 'sure thing', that people 'need to get on board now', that
logic and history are on your side, and so on and so forth. So, what's the big
difference in your tactics?//

//Lazarus, what you state above is impossible, literally. You can not have a
market for those activities which are indispensible for the market itself to
exist and operate. If the function of 'enforcing property rights' is subject
to property rights as well, and can be sold to the highest bidder, then there
is no way that the property rights of all will be enforced and protected.
Those of the highest bidder will, as well as those of the owner of the
property rights over the function of enforcing property rights in general, and
those of the rest will not. I invite you NOT to take my word for it, and to
check with the basic tenets of libertarianism, and see if what I say above
makes sense.//

//The function of 'enforcing property rights' cannot, logically, be replaced
by private service providers, since there will then be nobody that could
enforce your or anybody else's property rights over the service of 'enforcing
property rights'.//

<snip>

//I am serious, Lazarus, the above is a logical and practical impossibility.
The basic functions of the state, those that have to do with the
establishment, guarantee, and enforcement of rights, which are preconditions
for exchange, and contracts, and markets CANNOT be simultaneously be part of a
market. This is equivalent to the stomach digesting itself. You need a stomach
in order to digest food in order to maintain your stomach so you can digest
food and so on and so forth.//

<snip>

//Lazarus,  in medieval feudal societies private property rights on land and
person did not exist. Check any legal history and any history book on the era.
For anyone to claim private property over anything and make it stick, either
they have to fight off every single challenge by anybody forever, or they have
to have recourse to a 'neutral' third party that will enforce that right
against others. If human beings, throughout history, have not been able to
enforce property rights over thelselves on their own, it is entirely illogical
to claim that they could enforce property rights over external objects.//

//Ok, fine, Lazarus. From now on, we shall treat Ayn Rand, and those who quote
Ayn Rand in support of libertarian principles as 'fakes', who did not properly
understand nor espouse true libertarian principles.//

//Lazarus, do you concede lain's point above, and then proceed to offer yours
against him, above? According to libertarian principles (the 'true' ones) do
employees retain their right to free speech or not while on the property of
their employer, yes or no?//

//Good, reasonable admonition. It of course applies to you, as well.//

Stavros N. Karageorgis C.Phil.
UCLA - Sociology


subject: Lazarus Long vs SNK (Who is lying, and who is biased)

text:
In article <[email]> [email] (Stavros N. Karageorgis) writes:

Fellow netters,

Lazarus Long has accused of admitting that I am biased against him. He did so
by savagely cutting the following passage (in //text// form). I reproduce the
whole passage below, and I highllight the text in 'question'. I'll leave it up
to you to draw your conclusions as to who is biased against whom, and who is
willing to CHEAT in order to make a point on the usenet. Long is the same
person who advocates 'private courts' for the orderly and peaceful
adjudication of contract disputes . . .

LL:   Beats your lack of logic...and knowledge of economics.

SNK://Can I ask you a question, Lazarus? How much knowledge of economics do
you have, and how have you concretely demonstrated that you have it in this
forum? In addition, why does each side have to accuse the other of not having
logic? If two people start from different premises, which you and lain most
certainly do, following through with the most pristine and unassailable logic
will perforce lead you to different conclusions. It is probably impossible
for people to rationally discuss 'first principles'. Adherence to such first
principles is as much, if not more, a non-rational decision, as it is a
deliberative rational one. But, a debate about THEM, certainly beats this
incessant back and forth that promises to continue until either one of both of
you get bored with it. There is no 'magic bullet', an unassailable
set of philosophical tenets, and a methodology, that once acquired is the
general key (the passe-partout) of all knowledge and all analysis.

*****************BEGIN TEXT IN QUESTION ******************

 You seem to be much more committed to such a view as lain is, but then again
maybe I am biased against you.

******************END TEXT IN QUESTION ******************************

<Snipped>

Anyone who can read the above passage and accuse me of having admitted that I
am biased against Long, or that I did not keep equal distances between him and
lain et all, please demonstrate textually in this forum.

I thank you for your attention
Stavros N. Karageorgis C.Phil.
UCLA - Sociology


text:
[email] pontificated in a message to All:

ku> From: [email] (Stavros N. Karageorgis)
ku> Subject: Re: Iain desperately attempts to defend his pseudo-economic
ku> theory Organization: University of California, Los Angeles

ku> In article <[email]>
ku> 2-100-1![email] (Lazarus Long) writes:
ku> <snip>

ku> //Can I ask you a question, Lazarus? How much knowledge of economics

  Can I ask you a question, Stavros?

ku> I am  biased against you.

    Yes, I noticed that. You have posted similar whines in the
    past, yet conveniently never post these same whines to the
    anarcho-theftists.

ku> I doubt you will heed my advice, but be that as it may, I am
ku> offering it  anyway . . .

   Of course I will. Coming from such a pompous twit who admits
   that he only regards arguments from one side as valid, your
   admonishments have little credibility.

ku> you  guys debate these issues, with civility and calm. This could be
ku> very useful  both to you and to the rest of us.//

   WHy don't you post these messages in response to Iain's posts,
   which contain similar attitudes?

ku> //Since I qualify by both criteria, I can tell you that I recognise
ku> owners. Private  companies, firms, are NOT markets. This much was

  The interactions between firms and consumers is a market.

ku> //Lazarus, how will disputes over contracts,  before they expire, be
ku> settled?  What if the workers decide that they do not want to
ku> continue abiding by the  terms of the contract, and engage in a
ku> sit-down strike. Or, what if the  employer decides that he/she is

    In  other words...if the workers have signed a contract and
    then wish to break it?

ku> not going to let them leave after the work-day  ends, or that he/she
ku> is not going to pay the agreed-upon contractual wage? Do  you or do
ku> you not need a third party, beholden to neither party, to adjudicate
ku> those disputes and enforce the rule of law, and the sanctity of both
ku> parties'  property rights, and the sanctity of the contract? How do

   If the contract is broken, the other side is also relieved of
   his obligations and is free to contract with others.

ku> have  rights over it, and asserting that no, 'he' does? How will you
ku> enforce, in a  state-less world, voluntary agreements and
ku> contracts?//

    Private courts.

ku> //Where is the massive support for libertarianism, as well? Where
ku> are the  massive overthrowings of States? Both of you are involved
ku> in a political  project. You are trying to convince others, enough
ku> others, so that you can  have that 'international support' and the
ku> 'massive overthrowings'. In the  process of trying to 'sell' your
ku> ideas, both of you, like any competent  salesman, claim that there
ku> is already massive support, that what you are  proposing is a 'sure
ku> thing', that people 'need to get on board now', that  logic and
ku> history are on your side, and so on and so forth. So, what's the big
ku> difference in your tactics?//

    The support is shown in the recent push for less government
    intervention and the election of advocates of smaller spending
    by the state.

ku> //Lazarus, what you state above is impossible, literally. You can
ku> not have a  market for those activities which are indispensible for
ku> the market itself to  exist and operate. If the function of

   Not so.

ku> 'enforcing property rights' is subject  to property rights as well,
ku> and can be sold to the highest bidder, then there  is no way that
ku> the property rights of all will be enforced and protected.  Those of
ku> the highest bidder will, as well as those of the owner of the
ku> property rights over the function of enforcing property rights in
ku> general, and  those of the rest will not. I invite you NOT to take
ku> my word for it, and to  check with the basic tenets of
ku> libertarianism, and see if what I say above  makes sense.//

ku> //The function of 'enforcing property rights' cannot, logically, be
ku> replaced  by private service providers, since there will then be
ku> nobody that could  enforce your or anybody else's property rights
ku> over the service of 'enforcing  property rights'.//

   Actually it can be. I refer you to Friedman's Machinery of
   Freedom for several variations on that theme. You also might
   check Narveson's The Libertarian Idea for his contractarian
   ideas.

ku> //Lazarus,  in medieval feudal societies private property rights on
ku> land and  person did not exist. Check any legal history and any
ku> history book on the era.  For anyone to claim private property over
ku> anything and make it stick, either  they have to fight off every
ku> single challenge by anybody forever, or they have  to have recourse
ku> to a 'neutral' third party that will enforce that right  against
ku> others. If human beings, throughout history, have not been able to
ku> enforce property rights over thelselves on their own, it is entirely
ku> illogical  to claim that they could enforce property rights over
ku> external objects.//

  Friedman argues, quite convincingly, the right to private
  property and person in Iceland.

ku> //Ok, fine, Lazarus. From now on, we shall treat Ayn Rand, and those
ku> who quote  Ayn Rand in support of libertarian principles as 'fakes',
ku> who did not properly  understand nor espouse true libertarian
ku> principles.//

   Sorry student, you obviously have not read what Rand had to say
   about libertarians and anarcho-capitalists.
   Don't blame me for your ignorance of the topic.

ku> //Lazarus, do you concede lain's point above, and then proceed to
ku> offer yours  against him, above? According to libertarian principles
ku> (the 'true' ones) do  employees retain their right to free speech or
ku> not while on the property of  their employer, yes or no?//

   Just as the employer has no right of free speech on his
   employees property. If you accept Iain's argument, then the
   "bosses" can freely do as they wish on the employees property.
   Like drop in and use the employee's house...or car...etc.

ku> //Good, reasonable admonition. It of course applies to you, as
ku> well.//

   Actually dear boy, I have been assisting several community
   service agencies in my community to get off of the government
   payroll and grant list, and seek private and voluntary
   community funding.

   Really enjoyed seeing such an unbiased post. Tell me..do you
   let your biases effect your academic work as much as you do
   your postings?

Visit the Rational Anarchist HomePage at:
http://vaxxine.com/rational/lazarus.html

[email](fastest)

... Anarcho-socialism = Theftism...the politics of envy


author: Jamal Hannah

subject: Re: Lazarus desperately attempts to defend his pseudo-economic theory

text:
Lazarus Long <2-100-1![email]> wrote:

When the firms dominate the market, the range of suffifient
 choices for the consumers is limited.

But not if the "others" refuse to be exploited.

This was pushed by the Republicans and Newt Gingrich, Bill Weld,
Pete Wilson, etc.. interestingly enough, it only proves that right-wing
"Libertarians" and "anarcho-" capitalists have more in common with
the Republicans than anything remotely "liberal".

Oh?

The state is an organic part of this market which protects the unequal
distribution of property and profits, hides corporate secrets,
and maintains "order" so that the market will be "stable".

So move to Iceland?  Iceland in a pre-industrial time period,
with a low ratio of serfs-to-tradesmen is comparible to many native tribes.
Many upper-class folks have tried to glorify the past trade-societies
in terms of "capitalism" in some utopian way.. going back to which
would be as brutal as the killing fields of Phol Pot.  We live in a modern
society with millions of people and we must face reality as it is.

%90 of modern post-FDR right-libertarian theory comes directly from Rand,
with the blatent embaressments clumsily hidden from view...

What is more telling than Rand's authoritarian rants in defense of the
state were how so many who read Rand's writing were drawn to the concept
of a capitalist "Libertarian" party... so this "student" is not incorrect.

The bosses can try, but the fact is, the bosses get their wealth from
the workers.. so they would lose it without them to slave for them.
Also, the workers far outnumber the bosses and would be glad to kick his
ass if he tried.  Lastly, the boss usualy DOES have a right to freedom of
speech on the workers "property".. why? because the worker generaly
does not OWN his house.. the landlord or bank does.. and who is an ally
of the banker or landlord? the boss.  The worker loses, in the freedom-
of-speech fight.

"Anarcho"-capitalism = Anarcho-Theftism... the politics of domination.

Liberty for the People page:
http://tigerden.com/~berios/liberty.html

[email]