I heard "Fuck QM"... but it was me saying it.

Why do you hate the letter M so much! Fk you, M!"

I also heard that Budzos is worth 1000000000 QM's.

Is this more Ca$h for Clunker$ propaganda?

I also heard QM called someone a spook but managed to explain it away, yet Westy was hobbled for making a tongue in cheek comment.

QM cut-n-pasted a quote from a popular movie, in response to an individual who was going out of his way to act like a butthole. End of story.

I also heard that you'll find QM never makes a real suggestion as to a solution, but runs around downvoting things which aren't even anything but news reports, like Obama's public address statements.

Well, while we're all here, I'm curious as to why you have nothing better to do but downvote my comments, VL--not sifts, but comments--on my own little nook that I force no one to read. I'm just kidding, I know why. You're on a crusade.

I gots plenty of 'open-ended' solutions tailored for anyone, and no one to listen. I admit it gets rather tedious, even to type it: 99 out of 100 times, don't trust the government to solve your problems, take responsibility, read history, let the peeps who make the $$$ keep most of it, read, America First. But they'll be none of that, eh? Because the world is an UNJUST place and someone's gotta DO something! As the Africans say, 'A fool tests the water with both feet'. Maybe you shouldn't pour that gasoline on the fire, even though it qualifies as TAKING IMMEDIATE ACTION.

I also heard "Fuck QM" somewhere. Oh yea, earlier.

Take that, M! And no, I don't hate you, VL. Never have. You go on doing what you feel is right, even if it's left.

Don't know budzos. Had nothing to do with hobbling him. He got angry, which happens. Or he's one of these paid shills for the insurance companies, sent to disrupt VS town meetings.

Jigga J. is one of my most loyal...opponents. He doesn't like what I have to say, yet here he is. If you can't respect me or my foolishness, don't diss him for being tolerant. The only mistake he made in opening the door to this inquiry is now everyone has to suffer more blankfist comments.

I heard "Fuck QM"... but it was me saying it.

I also heard that Budzos is worth 1000000000 QM's. I also heard QM called someone a spook but managed to explain it away, yet Westy was hobbled for making a tongue in cheek comment.

I also heard that you'll find QM never makes a real suggestion as to a solution, but runs around downvoting things which aren't even anything but news reports, like Obama's public address statements.

I also heard "Fuck QM" somewhere. Oh yea, earlier.

So I guess it all depends on what Dag feels like doing, which is whatever.

>> ^MINK
so give me a handout to develop some philosophy and social structure and culture. tell me how that works in a free market.

Heres the prescription I would give to (begin to) cure the philosophical deficiency of 21st century culture:
"The Blind Watchmaker" my Richard Dawkins
"The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins
"For The New Intellectual" by Ayn Rand
"The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand
"Free To Choose" by Milton Friedman
"Economics in One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt
"The Art of Thinking" by Vincent Ruggiero
"The Nature of Consciousness" by Alan Watts

Two years ago I was just as against the free market as you or anyone else was. It was only possible for me to accept these ideas once I had changed my philosophical, societal, and cultural perspective. Philosophy is not bought or sold on ebay, it is taught in schools, in interactions with friends, and from parents.

These conversations are my attempt to share philosophy, maybe I'm not very successful...but I'm just some random guy I'm no Alan Watts.

>> ^imstellar28:
>> We should address it by developing our philosophy, social structure, and culture--rather than trying to impose it via market controls.

so give me a handout to develop some philosophy and social structure and culture. tell me how that works in a free market. I put my philosophy on ebay?

The way you gloss over essentially EVERYTHING HUMAN (i.e. philosophy, social structure and culture) is what astounds me about free market economists. They have a huge carpet to sweep things under which don't fit into their main numbercounting theory.

The soviets tried to sideline economic facts in order to sustain social programs. You want to sideline social facts in order to sustain an economic program.

Both systems fail to deliver, but at least the soviets were trying, as opposed to gleefully trusting corporations to provide our every need*

*philosophy, social structure and culture not included. your mileage may vary. read instructions before use. the manufacturer is not responsible for death caused by this product.

>> ^MINK:
However, when it comes down to it, I simply don't trust "the consumer" to buy the right shit, any more than i trust "the voter" to make an intelligent decision about the next president.

You are very much correct here. I'm not big fan of the "american" dream aka a 3 bed 2 bath house in suburbia, 2 cars, a tv with living room set, a house full of knick knacks, and a fenced in backyard with a single decorative tree out front; but thats why I don't own a house, car, sofa, or tv.

However, that is a deficiency in philosophy rather than a deficiency in the market. We should address it by developing our philosophy, social structure, and culture--rather than trying to impose it via market controls.

As far as monopolies go, you might be surprised just who is advocating the regulation--it is almost never the consumer, and almost always the very big businesses you are talking about. I just added a video which talks about this.

>> ^imstellar28:
^bamdrew
there are already free market solutions to pollution, solutions which would greatly reduce the current levels of pollution while at the same time increasing production...you just have never heard of them because you haven't looked.


Excellent... where can I buy one of these? Why aren't they more popular? I googled "free market solution to pollution" and got an episode of Libertarian-occasionally-funny-comedian/magician Penn-and-Teller's "Bullshit" in which they use an ex-GMA weatherman to contradict the general consensus of the world's scientific community and debunk a free-market solution to global warming (carbon credits).

Consider this... if the arguments you propose are really as extraordinary and easy to implement, why isn't everyone using them? There must be some nation operating under the system you are advocating, otherwise, we are all complete fucking morons, right? Which nation is implementing your wisdom?

http://www.videosift.com/video/How-to-create-a-1000000000-industry
My last comment is a winner.

>> ^imstellar28:
^do you believe in evolution?... if so, how can you not believe in the free market? the two operate on the exact same principle. are you saying what was good enough to create human beings is not good enough to create ipods?


First off you should not drag biologist into this. It is my experience that they are a bawdy and obstinate lot, who do not take kindly to people using Darwin's name in vain.

Physicists on the other hand loves us some crazy.

Your IPod example is HORRENDOUS. Mark my words, absolutely NO, Zero, Zilcherony, private industry would put money into developing the colossal magnetoresistor(CMR), which is the technology that made the IPod possible.

This is really for several reasons:

Peter Grünberg is the most boring and difficult to understand man I have ever met in my entire life. An old professor of mine and a friend of his said to me once, "They should take his Nobel away for being so boring."(In the middle of a talk by Peter) The subject is really hard to understand and break down into something simple, unless you have years of useless knowledge (even then- I say, good luck to you sir).

Which brings me to final point: By funding research that is hard to translate and breakdown the "why" the government creates new technologies and jobs, and it throws a lot of money in a lot of directions hoping one of them will take off like CMR, and revolutionalize an industry and technology like the way CMR has. The result is relatively low financial risk for the population, with almost a guaranteed huge return.

And really dude, you totally need to watch how you come across or you will persuade NO ONE if you keep that up. Wait, I am arguing against you... You have an eloquent and persuasive style.

>> ^imstellar28:
^of course you don't agree a free market is viable, because you have no idea what a free market is or how it works!


I live in Indiana, and to me the United States is a community of people before its a free market. We have different levels of government to address problems in the community. Fossil fuel use has been a problem for some time now, and the way our community addresses community problems is with government involvement in some form, be it funding the private sector to build such-and-such water-treatment plant or establishing publicly financed schools or having centers for disease control.

Communities big and small have representatives who make decisions on the community's problems with the community needs in mind; the free market is a set of interconnected buyers and sellers who make decision from information pertaining to the likelihood of increasing shareholder wealth.

Now, your argument is that community decisions shouldn't influence the economy of the community if its a free market economy. My argument would be that the community comes first.

This is oversimplifying, but this is a message board for a David Letterman clip.

...

Yep. Thought I'd take a second and back you up.

In reply to this comment by MycroftHomlz:
That's what I said... but he doesn't read other peoples comments. He just waits until he can speak again.

In reply to this comment by bamdrew:
Those profits aren't "available", you have to fight long and hard for them against an entrenched, experience, wealthy, connected foe. Not only that, but you must then convince investors, city councils, etc. that what is often a fairly unproven or novel idea will be a better investment in very financially tight times than putting in a coal or natural gas plant (especially since our power grid system was designed for these nearby, constant power sources).

Anyhow, I don't want to start driving into the details... my response in a nutshell is the barriers from idea to operation are very significant, requiring tons of work and tons from tons of employees, which means tons of money.



>> ^imstellar28:
^tell me this. why do you need incentive for people to enter a $1,000,000,000,000 industry? you don't think the sheer profit available is enough?

Those profits aren't "available", you have to fight long and hard for them against an entrenched, experience, wealthy, connected foe. Not only that, but to even start this battle you must convince investors, city councils, etc. that what is often a fairly unproven or novel idea will be a better investment in very financially tight times than putting in a coal or natural gas plant (made even harder given that the US grid system was designed for these nearby, constant power sources).

Anyhow, I don't want to start driving into the details... my response in a nutshell is the barriers from idea to operation are very significant, requiring tons of work from a good number of bright employees, which means tons of money just to get the ball rolling. In summary, Pres. Clinton is right when he notes that "we" paid a pile in taxes to get the energy industry going, and still pay a pile of money in taxes to keep putting lines up and updating systems; if we were serious about phasing into the new technology it is our responsibility as a community of citizens to make it happen, not the responsibility of the industry.



>> ^imstellar28:
^tell me this. why do you need incentive for people to enter a $1,000,000,000,000 industry? you don't think the sheer profit available is enough?

>> ^imstellar28:
^SDGundamX
It is regulation, and regulation alone that have created "barriers to entry" into to alternative energy market. The threat of price controls and regulation is the only barrier preventing people from tapping into this $1,000,000,000,000 market. If it wasn't for government intervention, specially in the Department of Energy, we would probably have kicked out dependence on foreign oil by the 21st century.
I really think you need to look deeper into United States history. All the answers are there. I mean, honestly, both examples you provided (steel and railroad) have been complete disasters in government regulation. And before you respond to that...again...you should look into the history--I'm not just making these things up. I can write at least a couple pages on those two examples alone, and provide figures and numbers...but I implore you to look into it for yourself first.


I was quibbling mainly with your blanket statement that no government regulation is a good idea. No government regulation at all--I'm talking zero interference, zero oversight--results in market imbalances such as a corporation that gets big enough being able to create either a vertical or horizontal monopoly that corners the market--something that happened with steel and train transportation in the U.S. in the past. Such monopolies actually wind up killing competition and stifling a free market, which is why government oversight to some extent is necessary to prevent their emergence.

Monopolies are not inherently bad, of course. They are absolutely necessary in certain instances, like utilities, to ensure a fair distribution of resources vital to survival such as electricity and water and to prevent the mass confusion and unrest that would result from every company attempting to lay its own electric or water lines. But utilities are heavily regulated and for good reason--in California we had rolling blackouts back in the 90s due to a deregulation of electric utilities that caused electric prices to go through the roof.

I'm not saying the government should set prices for all goods and services. I'm saying that in order to maintain a free market some government oversight and regulation is absolutely essential. How much oversight and regulation is necessary is what most people debate about. Few people believe in total laissez faire because I think history has shown it to result in market imbalances that wind up forcing government intervention to occur in the end anyway.

I think risk is the primary deterrent. It is the same logic behind becoming a scientist, doctor, or lawyer.

It is a fact we make a lot of money, but not everyone does it. There are more factors than simply 'this is in my best financial interests'. You are presenting things as they are absolute black and white, which they are decidedly not.

>> ^imstellar28:
^tell me this. why do you need incentive for people to enter a $1,000,000,000,000 industry? you don't think the sheer profit available is enough?


A good example of this would be:

MRI Industry
Microwave Industry
Cellular Communication Industry
Nuclear Energy Industry
Computer Industry(By way of the transistor, substrates, etc.)
Genetic Engineering Industry

Basically anything except Railroad and Oil...

Hey wait... Those had incentives... Carnot is basically the founder of thermodynamics. And the British Government gave him tons of money to research steam engines. And research into the science of mining for oil is supported by the government, too. So yeah, I guess your question is silly. Regardless of the profits to be made governments have always provided incentives in one form or another to support industry, because ensuring a good economy is in their best interests.

Can I get an amen?

>> ^imstellar28:
Heres how you create a $1,000,000,000,000 market:
1. Remove all government regulation
2. Watch and wait as the net ingenuity of 300 million Americans vie for a slice of $1,000,000,000,000 pie, developing an array of innovative and cost-effective new products.


Deregulation is what brought you the current financial crisis. Deregulation is what brought you Enron.

Accidental comment upvote there...

Hey this was from 2002... Geebus... Man this is 6 years old. Could you imagine if we had listened to him?

>> ^imstellar28:
Heres how you create a $1,000,000,000,000 market:
1. Remove all government regulation
2. Watch and wait as the net ingenuity of 300 million Americans vie for a slice of $1,000,000,000,000 pie, developing an array of innovative and cost-effective new products.