There are far better qualified and knowledgeable people on here (@radx) who could explain that, but i'll try and explain why the video isn't bullshit.

Let's say the government spends a certain amount of money to build a road. That money goes a lot further than you think it does.
- whoever you pay to build it pays taxes on what they earn
- same for whoever you buy the materials/machinery from
- the road will probably be used by individuals and businesses spending money, so you've made that easier for them
- businesses stay afloat and keep trading, people's skills/training are not lost as they become unemployed
- saved yourself a whole bunch of money you would have had to spend in unemployment welfare

Because governments are not like people, they CAN spend money they don't have, to buy things that save them money! It's a simplistic analysis of a road and i'm no road building expert, but the term is "fiscal multiplication" and is used by governments to evaluate an investment. Governments are not like households, they can borrow £1.00 and get £2.00 back from it or more. For example over here in Britain there is a significant housing shortage, and one way of resolving that is by borrowing to invest in affordable & social housing. I think it was suggested that for every £1 spent on house building generates £2.50 back into the economy.

America is a sovereign nation that issues its own floating currency. Greece was not. There is no chance whatsoever of America, UK, Japan etc. becoming like Greece. Anyone saying that's possible is either scaremongering or heard it from someone who was.

I'm not saying the money has been spent or invested correctly, corruption and cronyism is rife in western politics. But that's an argument against government corruption rather than one against investment and debt. This isn't the first time we've tried austerity, it also isn't the highest debt-GDP ratio has been either for the US or the UK. The lessons of history have been you can't cut your way to prosperity, you have to invest towards it. That's the weight of economic thought right now afaik.

@dag

Depends on what goals you define Russia as wanting to achieve by that intervention.

Politically, intevening in Ukraine was a huge boon for Putin because his domestic media machine spun it into a irredentist initiative of national pride and basically suffocated his domestic political opposition. Diplomatically or economically, Russia has gained little from its intevention in Georgia, Ukraine and now Syria. If anything it has frayed alliances with Central Asian states and raised tensions with former Soviet Eastern European states, many of which have large minority Russian populations.

If the aim was to act as a bulwark to NATO or stem its expansion, he's preciptated the opposite. Countries neighboring Russia have every reason to fear they'll be next. Not that he had anything real to fear from NATO or the previously proposed anti-missile shield which was really proposed against Iran. I would say Putin's basically acting as a petulant child, throwing Russia's military around to reclaim some kind of atavastic relevance on the international stage to distract his people while he sinks the economy into the ground due to his government's corruption and cronyism.

@bareboards2
@newtboy



Answer this Why is Baltimore such a shit hole in treating inner city poor folks like dogs?


Like many failed cities, Detroit comes to mind, and every city besieged recently by rioting, Democrats and their union pals have had carte blanche to inflict their ideas and policies on Baltimore since 1967, the last time there was a Republican Mayor. In 2012, after four years of his own failed policies, President Obama won a whopping 87.4% of the Baltimore city vote. Democrats run the city of Baltimore, the unions, the schools, and, yes, the police force. Since 1969, there have only been only been two Republican governors of the State of Maryland. Elijah Cummings has represented Baltimore in the U.S. Congress for more than thirty years.”
..."the Democrat-infested mainstream media is treating the Democrat like a local folk hero, not the obvious and glaring failure he really is. Every single member of the Baltimore city council is a Democrat. Liberalism and all the toxic government dependence and cronyism and union corruption and failed schools that comes along with it, has run amok in Baltimore for a half-century, and that is Baltimore’s problem. It is the free people of Baltimore who elect and then re-elect those who institute policies that have so spectacularly failed that once-great city. It is the free people of Baltimore who elected Mayor “Space-to-Destroy”. From a recent Allen West post

http://allenbwest.com/2015/04/the-dirty-little-secret-no-one-wants-to-admit-about-baltimore/

Not to mention the $1.5Million /year federal dollars for education. Total 18.3 Million from 2001 and today..

plus the 1.8 Billion from Obama's Stimulus.

Peace/ love sharing and caring. Yep a Democrat Utopia.

Many of the "richest families in America" got to be that way because their businesses received subsidies and/or other crony favors. This is an undesirable situation for anyone (besides the cronies and politicians/bureaucrats, themselves). It's better to have wealthy families that are "wealthy" because their businesses deliver quality and service, not because they happen to be cronies.

Businesses that subsist because of cronyism (like the countries' largest banks, for example) should, in fact, collapse... Like GM should have collapsed back in 2008.

And all state subsidies should end.

Debunking the notion of "herd immunity," this doctor provides evidence for how the vaccines themselves can cause the person to develop measles and, itself, become the source of an outbreak.
Yet another problem coming as the result of patent laws and FDA-bred cronyism in the vaccine business..

In terms of "Big Brother," the United States government has paid more than $3 billion to victims of vaccines since 1989, according to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation (VICP).

*promote

Great talk. Covers a lot of very important key areas.

It is utterly ridiculous that so many people just do not care about this, and to be honest this is what concerns AND scares me about the future of humanity. To understand and to give a flying f*ck about these topics you must be knowledgeable and fairly smart (and also realize that your government AND others are NOT your friend--if you ever give someone power they MUST be held accountable and have a regulatory process--though these people "can" be your friend, but only when they truly are used by the people and not the government, lackeys, elected officials, and other idiots that make cronyism look like a mild and easily dealt with issue compared to this stuff...). This is an education system and social system problem (at least in the U.S.; we simply just DO NOT care about these topics very much even though we will regret it), and it is hard to fix since in many cases the "fix" must go through the same government that has a stranglehold on their populace and wishes it to remain this way...

People simply do not understand why we talk about this (or they "fall asleep" because it's "too boring", etc...), along with this they also don't care about science and other issues that require your brain to actually do work. So all issues that deal with complex areas of technology and/or science are now up for "dibs" by the highest bidders AND also governments. Both are scary, for many reasons...especially when you have a populace that really and truly does not understand that they are being used in so many different areas of their lives (which is true even now, and it will only become far, far worse).

So, I'm always happy to see these talks, but they will not truly succeed in any of their efforts until they make the "masses" aware of the issues and concerned of the issues.

I also appreciated his quote about the economic viability of slavery, used as a metaphor for the the moral use of torture and whether torture should ever be used to get, anything--I fully agree with this sentiment. Both, are always wrong.

Good talk. Though it is sad there are so very little ways to respond to the threats that some of these issues can represent, that they showed and talked about.

@dannym3141

Broadly speaking, I tend to subscribe to the view that capitalism is the worst economic system anyone ever invented, except for all the others. There are plenty of problems with it but also practical solutions that could be implemented. Pining for a better system is great, but this quasi-vague revolution that Brand is espousing is as almost guaranteed to be as direction-less and short lived as the Occupy movement.

Take campaign finance reform, of what I'm familiar the Mayday PAC in the US is proposing a voucher system where either (1) each voter is given and limited to a set amount tax refund they can spend on campaign contributions or alternatively (2) there is public finance for something like a 10 to 1 matching system for smaller donations. That seems like a good solution to the problem. It's not perfect though, as speech via the media (TV, internet) would still be wielded disproportionately by those with power. But it's a start. More transparency on where donations are coming from would also help.

I'm no fan of inequality either, but it's a far more difficult issue to grapple with. If you approach it with taxes, the problem is you need global coordination. A single country raising taxes will just see incomes shift elsewhere particular the highest percent who are the most mobile. There needs to be some kind of standard on taxation globally as to whether it is incurred where it is earned or where the company is registered, otherwise you have companies like Apple paying next to nothing because they avoid it in both countries (known as the double Irish, although this has now been eliminated it's a good example).

Should investment income be taxed higher? Probably, I'm not too well informed on this subject but it certainly entrenches established wealth. Should there be an estate-like tax of sorts that limits wealth passed on through generations? Perhaps, but it seems like a band-aid of sorts and a double dipping on what should really be collected through income tax in the first place.

I'm all for public services where it makes sense to provide them publicly. I don't like political cronyism either. But solutions need to be practical. Eliminating tax avoidance by multinationals is good policy because otherwise these companies paying virtually no tax intrinsically sets up barriers to entry to smaller competitors which is terrible economically and leads to monopolistic behaviour and higher prices. Targeting finance with a specific tax probably isn't. Business will just shift globally and countries like the UK will lose out more than they gain.

@speechless

UKIP's support from what I've read, comes significantly from smaller country towns with jobs like manufacturing which are disappearing largely due to continued global trade and outsourcing trends. UKIP's popularity comes from being able to scapegoat these global trends on immigration. I was more arguing from the point of view that countering Farage's demagoguery is best done by explaining why it is incorrect rather than necessary pointing to alternative solutions, although that should certainly be part of it. But citing taxing finance as your one and only solution is demagoguery in itself.

I'm not too familiar with the level of tax avoidance and cronyism in UK politics, at least relative to other rich countries. Would a higher personal or corporate tax rate, particularly in finance help? Maybe. As it is, the UK is a finance hub for Europe disproportionate to its economic size and contributes some 16% of GDP and significantly to the trade balance (boosting the pound to improve international buying power).

Finance is very globalized and business could shift very easily to Hong Kong or New York if taxes were raised to a sufficient extent. I would be not be surprised if a higher tax take could be generated from higher tax levels though, however a political overreaction to tax and regulate finance could be just as damaging as focussing on immigration in the greater scale of things.

Hm, so if businesses don't create jobs, I guess the only other option would be employment by the state... That's the theory that John Galt put to the test in fiction, and Joseph Stalin put to the test in practice. (And we all know how well that went!)

Jeez, 4 years under a Clinton regime seems like such a long time! I suppose the only glimmer of hope would be that, given how pro-cronyism she clearly is, I doubt she really believes what she says here. Maybe what she means is that businesses don't create jobs unless they are cronies. Otherwise, they just have to go out of business. Perhaps having a hypocrite in office may be better than having a fanatic, but who can tell?

Of course, there's always the chance that she actually knows nothing of economics and has no common sense either....

People who spend all their lives in "public service" often have no clue of how businesses actually run or what businesses do or need to function. Such people live in a different world where money "magically" comes out of a (Federal-Reserve-controlled) "printing press" at the push of a button whenever the powers-that-be deem it so. They live in a world where the "customers" are forced by law to pay for "services" they don't want, and follow rules that are not applicable to the rulers themselves.


(But then, again, Hilary says she was "dead broke" when she left the White House. I guess we should take her word for it.)

Note: Ancient Rome also had its share of crazy Patricians and rulers. This tends to become more commonplace as empires go off the deep end.

Objectivism doesn't ally very well with the current GOP party, actually. Objectivism is very much against gov't cronyism. Also, Objectivism is extremely liberal on social issues.

It is true that Objectivism is very closely aligned with libertarianism, but that ain't the Tea Party socially.

#1 I clicked "ignore" after responding to his post. That is what I have no problem with doing.

#2 Bullshit. (sorry but it is) Hundreds if not thousands of people get arrested and prosecuted regularly for drug possession, drug selling, and even drug use. Tell me what's been decriminalized!

#3 The state is doing quite a bit in Oakland, actually, like preventing the private institutions that would solve these problems from arising in the fist place from setting up there (but instead hold failed monopolies over those industries). For example, there are no legalized drug dealers (See bullshit #2). Again, that kind of gang activity happens on a "public" street. It does not happen on private property. And even if it did, it'd be no one's business but the owners'.

#4 If this was even close to true, then it's even more proof of the superiority of private police over "public" law enforcement. Because, like I said, you don't see this kind of thing happening on private property, do you?

#5. Wrong. Businesses will take care of that if given an incentive to move there. Have you not heard of people complaining about (so-called) "gentrification?"

#6. Huh? Really? So, are there no business permits needed to set up a business in Oakland? Do the business owners and residents of Oakland not have to pay taxes? Is there no open carry for law-abiding citizens? (now there will be it seems). Is there no enforced rent control in Oakland? If you don't see any regulations being enforced, then you are willfully ignorant.

#7. There are no gangs at Disney because it is private property and its owners will not put up with something so bad for business as gangs. Disneyland and Google have gentrified the neighborhoods they are in -- they were not always low crime areas as they were before they moved in.

"Oakland is a high crime area with little money for security."

Yeah, those usually go together. The ultimate results of statist interventions are always poverty and crime.

#8 Much of the violent crime happens in the "public" spaces, like the streets. Sure, there are break-ins to private homes, etc. but as you say, the poverty does not let people hire private security, and the "public" police (that have monopolized that industry) are, like you point out, completely useless to the tax-paying residents who live there.


#9 I'd rather I wouldn't have to pay for taxes and pay for my own security than having to give the money to the state in exchange for getting nothing in return. In fact, I'm aware of several security services that are available to people living in the ghetto for as little as $35/month.


#10 So, only gangsters can afford guns now? Maybe it will be cheaper without the gun "permit" costs. Or the restrictions about buying them more cheaply online.

And I highly doubt the peoople in Oakland can't afford guns, given how many guns there are in Oakland. But, for the sake of argument, lets say it's true. If not for the illegality of the drug trade, then gangsters would also not be able to afford guns (the illegality of the drugs is what's driving up the price and, as a result, the profitability of gangsterism). And if it wasn't for the regulations, Walmart would make sure to provide more affordable armaments, just like they do in other states.

I recommend spending just a few minutes inside the Oakland traffic court and you'll see how many "hardworking upstanding people" there are who somehow manage to pay for hundreds of dollars in fines and/or do community service for an equivalent minimum wage to pay for these. You could easily get a gun at Walmart for much less.


"Before someone claims I have no idea of what I speak, my brother lived in East Oakland..."

Well, if you think Oakland is a libertarian "dream," then you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. Having a brother who lived in Oakland for a year does not make you an expert on (or even vaguely familiar with) what a libertarian "dream" place looks like (or even -- as you apparently reveal -- what actually goes on in Oakland).


Just the fact that, as you say, Oakland is rather poor makes it a non-libertarian city at all. A free market society/economy (cronyism is not a free market, so don't even go there) has much less poverty than a 'regulated' one.

Sure, if you go from a state-dependent "economy" to a free market overnight, without having had time to rebuild the private institutions that the state demolished and/or took over and/or monopolized, then, sure you may have a chaotic transition period. That's why a controlled dismantlement is far more preferable to an anarchy that comes about by sudden collapse. But, you have to take what you can get.

(As we may find out first hand) the problem with a government going bankrupt is that, at first, it may seem like a good thing, but it can also bring about a worse repression from the state. Praxeology cannot answer the unknown. It falls more within the realm of thymological prediction/analysis.

And what you just said was relevant to anything other than your own narrow preconceived notions of what is or is not a worthwhile use of someone's time and property?

What I was doing was taking your initial argument and demonstrating the absurdity at it's core by extrapolating it's logical consequences. This is what one does when one has been taught to argue at a level beyond pre-school debating classes. I haven't just "read some Chomsky" I have spent my entire academic career studying Philosophy and linguistics/rhetoric.

Chomsky and I actually disagree on many things & frankly the fact you would choose him and not say Jacques Fresco, Jean Jacques Rousseau or Slavoj Zizek etc. with whom my beliefs have a much greater affinity suggest that you yourself have a paper thin grounding in the political and philosophical subjects you are trying to pull me up on. (and to be clear I don't fully agree with any of those people either, my political philosophy is based upon my own conclusions built up over years of study and consideration)


So lets be clear, generating $7000 of income is to you a pointless activity? (a point you have consistently refused to acknowledge as it undermines your entire argument). What about trying to entertain people? Are all attempts at comedy fruitless because they didn't make YOU laugh?

"Immature", "funny" and "necessary" are all highly subjective concepts.

Clearly YOU didn't find it funny, others (about 7 fucking million in fact!) did.

Clearly YOU thought the video creator lacked maturity, plenty of people would regard his sense of timing, context and dare I say it low level satire as indicative of a potentially very mature and cognicent individual. (not saying he is but the evidence supports either notion)

But most of all NOTHING in the universe is demonstrably necessary, not even the universe itself. The very concept of necessity or usefulness is entirely subjective in it's nature. We as humans invented it, nature has no such qualms, it simply exists and continues to do so (unless you wan't to bring God into this at which point my eyes will likely glaze over).

This did start as your observation regarding the "pointless" destruction of a phone, an observation I was suggesting had it's basis in little more than your own narrow preconceptions about what is and is not a laudable use of ones time and resources.

The point about other evils in the world was an (unsuccessful) attempt to point out the absurdity of getting your knickers in a twist about something so trivial it's almost funny. What you consider a serious problem on the global level specifically is less important than the simple fact that this dude smashing up a phone is utterly negligible by comparison to virtually anything one might care to mention. The best counter you have here far as I can see is to suggest that everything is pointless/subjective which would naturally be totally self defeating. (or to backtrack and redefine your position as one of mere distaste and aesthetic preference rather than an objective truth as you did)

Maybe your a Randist or an anarcho-capitalist or something. That's fine and while I might disagree with the premise of those positions their proponents would support my core notion just the same. i.e. getting angry and this dude smashing up his phone is by a country mile the most inconsequential and asinine point of contention in this whole discussion.


Also to be clear, I utterly reject the entire notion of the left/right wing paradigm and you're attempt to once again put my argument in a box of your own design (i.e. straw man again) is not going to work.

I'm not anti capitalist I'm anti Nepotism and Cronyism. My own ideas about how to fix the world involve both capitalist and socialist principles (along with replacing "democracy" with "meritocracy"). If you had enquired further rather than just generalising my suggestions into a straw man to support your own argument you may have had the opportunity to realise this and engage with the ideas intellectually (rather than as a reactionary).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Learn to think critically instead of dressing up your own prejudices as objective facts (and attacking the arguer instead of the argument itself).

Some might consider an inability to separate subjective preconceptions from objective facts a far greater sign of immaturity. One of the reasons children are considered immature is because they cannot tell or control where their own Ego stops and other peoples begin. (though naturally this is itself a subjective notion and should probably never be defined as an objective truth either)

I don't expect you to respond like a Harvard professor but please at least engage with the content of the argument rather than painting me into a box and trying to assassinate my character. I'm sure you're probably a reasonably intelligent person and I'm always happy to back down or take back arguments if I'm presented with a well thought out reason why I might be wrong etc.

I said "cronyism aside" to explain the pure theory. Of course cronyism throws a wrench into the system. And cronyism is a function of government-granted privileges. As long as you have the monopoly we call government, you will have cronyism. Plain and simple. The most potent way to "slant the playing field" is through the use of government: a powerful and widely accepted tool of legalized aggression and coercion.

In fact, that's one of the main 'uses' of government regulation: to ensure that others cannot "catch up." The minimum wage laws are an example (contrary to the rhetoric surrounding the issue). So is taxation. And currency inflation used to pay for the bailouts. The list goes on and on.

Sociopaths win when they can use government to prevent competition. And make no mistake, the government itself is rife with sociopaths. (One might say that it's a prerequisite!)

(BTW, what exactly do the sociopaths "win?" To my mind, any "wealth" they have was not "won" at all, but was stolen by force, using the government as a mechanism of income redistribution. Without this tool, they'd have no choice but to offer actual goods/services that others want to pay for, if they want any wealth.)

.....
(And just as I was about to post this, I found this!) You think it's harder for poor folks to climb the income ladder now than it was 20 or 40 years ago? You're wrong, say the folks at the Equality of Opportunity project. (Let me note that these are NOT "right wingers." Saez is the darling of many progressives because of some his earlier work on inequality.) "The authors of this study measured the ability of children born in different income strata from 1971 to 1993 to move into different income groups. For example, it found that a child born in 1971 in the bottom 20% of household earners had an 8.4% chance of eventually making it into the top 20% of earners by his or her 20s or 30s. The chances of a child born in 1986 making a similar ascent was 9.0%."

But in a world with massive inequalities in wealth, you simply cannot put cronyism aside. Humans are corruptible, and when some people own millions of times the amount of wealth of others, they can (and many do) use that wealth to slant the playing field drastically in their favor, apparently in order to ensure that nobody can ever catch up with them, or even do as well as they did.

This is the core problem with high levels of wealth inequality. Sociopaths win.

"As I see it, there is a finite amount of money"

This is only true if cryptocurrencies like BitCoin have their way. According to the Fed, by contrast, an infinite amount of money is but just one click away...

Cronyism aside, this is not true at all:
"When one minimally productive person gets 50% of the capital in a project, it's impossible for anyone else to be compensated fairly."

No minimally productive person would get 50% in a free market. And "minimally productive" according to whom? Are you going by the Labor Theory of value? Because the Subjective Theory of Value posits otherwise. It shows that this could not happen (providing an absence of cronyism which, at the moment, is baked into the system). In other words, no one would voluntarily pay 50% of anything to someone they consider to be minimally productive. Would you?

Money is just a medium of exchange whose value is determined by the market. There are some scarce resources (as well as some non-scarce ones). Having limited money/medium of exchange makes prices go down. Wouldn't you want to pay less for gas, food, etc.? When the central banks inflate the currency (i.e., increase the money supply), there is potentially "unlimited" money to buy scarce goods. The market then makes prices rise as a result, making people effectively poorer.

"To say "much of the world is coming out of poverty" ignores reality. Perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty"

Flat wrong: Look at the statistics. Millions in India, China, Southeast Asia, and other places throughout the world have come out of poverty in the last couple of decades. This is a fact.

The ruling class is never among the poor so I don't know what you mean by, "perhaps the ruling class of much of the world is coming out of poverty." What?

"This is usually not in spite of governments, but rather because of them."

Sure, it is mostly because of governments that such poverty takes so long to be eradicated. Corruption and stupid ideas like the "war on poverty," along with cronyism, currency inflation, commercial regulations, taxes, "intellectual property" laws, and more all contribute to this stupidity which keeps people poor. Throughout the history of civilization, only innovation and free commerce has brought people out of poverty on a larger scale.

I won't argue, however, against the idea that governments are always corrupt, since I completely agree. Nothing good comes out of government that could not come to us, more efficiently, more cheaply, and more effectively from private free commerce.

"Praxeology only shows what human behavior is like"

More or less, it shows the logic and the logical consequences of the fact that humans act.

"it is not an accurate predictor of behavior in an environmental hypothesis."

It depends on what you mean to predict. It is not prediction. It deals in apodictic certainties. Humans act and employ chosen means to achieve desired goals. These are certainties, not predictions. Other things are unknowns, like time preference, the means chosen, the goals desired, etc. and those you need to either predict (thymology) or wait and see (history).

"History is better, and when wealth inequality becomes so outrageous that the populace can't survive on what's left for them, they revolt."

So far yes, history would indicate this is a likely outcome or consequence, although you may need to look more closely at which sector of "the populace" has historically revolted or instigated revolt.

"I hope that this asshat (even if he's just pretending to be an asshat) is among the first ones hung, quartered, and force fed to his own family (like they did in France)"

What has he done to deserve being tortured and murdered? I am unclear about that. The revolution in France, of course, was a disaster that amounted to little good for all involved. But things like that have happened before, and could certainly happen again. Same with the Russian Revolution. Or the Nazi takeover of bankrupt Weimar Republic.

Human behavior cannot be predicted mathematically. Only econometricians seem to think so. Certainly not praxeologists! In fact, that's the basis of Misean praxeology: that you cannot predict human behavior and so economics differs from the natural sciences and requires a different method of analysis.

"that placates the Right Wing, right?"

I have no idea what would "placate the Right wing" or not. Let's not conflate right-wing statists with anarchists. Two completely different things. I also don't care what would "placate" the right wing.


If you really care about inequality, do what you can to oppose government policy, especially warmongering and central banking. They are the biggest contributors to the class divide, regardless of how you parse the data. (Of course, you may find that you can do very little.)

If you think you should be paid as much as the CEO of Apple, then by all means you should try applying to that job. I am not saying you are not worth it, but it's not me you have to convince...