201. Comment #159996 by Noodly on April 13, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Julius

So you turn up to mass and pretend to be a believer. I fully understand now, for you it's a fetish!

For me it's more like this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ9sJVJMiYM&e

Other Comments by Noodly

202. Comment #160096 by PLAYBALL on April 13, 2008 at 4:05 pm

200. Comment #159954 by Julius Morche on April 13, 2008 at 1:15 pm

You can perfectly listen to a priest performing the rite of transubstantiation without actually believing that he is "apparently transforming bread into flesh".

Really? You seriously can do that? That entire little ritual seems laughable to me.

201. Comment #159969 by Geoff on April 13, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Here's a current example of the sort of thing I mean:
http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n09290708-pope-usa-abuse/

Thanks Geoff.

Other Comments by PLAYBALL

203. Comment #160120 by Julius Morche on April 13, 2008 at 4:49 pm

Geoff

I guess you are right. My apathy results from my conviction that the Catholic Church will have officially abandoned its belief system within a few decades. By then, all Catholics will be cultural Catholics anyway. Many Catholics already are today.

But of course it's always good to make your concerns heard where you have them.

Other Comments by Julius Morche

204. Comment #160123 by Scandinavian07 on April 13, 2008 at 4:55 pm

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1553248045989563785&q=type:sv_charlierose
About 35 minutes in.

Collins on Charlie Rose (from 05), about this topic.

Scandinavian07

Other Comments by Scandinavian07

205. Comment #160130 by Stephen Maxwell on April 13, 2008 at 5:16 pm

Julius, I apologise if you've answered already but since you attend Catholic mass...

Do you kneel?

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

206. Comment #160131 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Sorry, I'm not into many Austrian/German things.
Something in the water over there, I dunno, they had a propensity for militaristic cookie cutter robots in a row stuff long before it went too far and became Nazis.

Diacanu - You know, this isn't the first time that I've seen someone object to the Austrian School of Economics simply based on the fact that its from Austria. I honestly am at a loss of words at how to respond to such ignorance. Never mind the fact that everything that the Austrian School stands for (e.g. individual freedom, peace, free trade, minimal government, etc.) is a complete contradiction to everything that the NDSAP/Nazi party stood for. Do you really object to anything German or Austrian? Such a shame - I've been to both countries and I absolutely love them.

Only idiots would believe in the Austrian school. When Hayek was sick, I suppose he would have gone to a doctor instead of waiting for nature to take its course because he didn't know all the possible side effects of medical interventions.

But then only idiots would think a hack and a tenth rate writer like Ayn Rand was a genius.

Bonzai:Indeed - your completely unbiased and objective evidence has caused me to reject Hayek and Rand, among others. Excellent post.

Sweatshops, pollution, health, the suppression of studies that show products to be unhealthy e.g smoking, countless medicines, the creation of diseases so drugs can be marketed. Healthcare in general. The privatisation of natural resources google privatisation of rainwater in Bolivia for example, or take villages in Africa that can't get access to water because they have to pay to use the well, so they die. Marketing Campaigns that manipulate children. In the US, the Supreme Court ruled that anything alive can be patented except a human being. The media is censored. American corporations role in Nazi Germany (IBM and the holocaust). I can go on and on.

Toad: Yet you fail to tell me where at any time the corporation "guilty" of such things is forcing you to buy their product. Do people really care that Nike clothes are made in sweat shops? Or that Starbucks destroys indigenous coffee farmers in South America? They might - but certainly not enough to stop buying their product. In all situations, the consumer and the Almighty Dollar are the ultimate arbiter.

As for government, when you start with the philosophy that government can do nothing but evil, government is never going to work.

Diacanu: Hey - you're catching on! Government is evil, albeit a necessary one. It's sole reason for existence is to provide for the collective defense of its citizens and nothing more. We are approaching a stage in human history where the government tells the individual what s/he can or cannot do, rather than the individual telling the government what it can or cannot do. This is the most dangerous stage in all of human history. Tyrannical rule of government is the inevitable end of this road.

I can go on and on about technoligies that are easily feasible for the 5 major car companies to create but they don't.

IP4: I've heard this argument a million times too. That car companies can build a car that doesn't run on oil but they keep the technology suppressed. Yea....sure. Never mind the fact that a car that doesn't run on oil (or consumes a lot less) would be a modern-day gold mine for the manufacturing companies. But you go ahead and keep believing that there is a massive conspiracy in the works to suppress technology...

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

207. Comment #160134 by Stephen Maxwell on April 13, 2008 at 5:25 pm

FightingFalcon, you do realise how much money the government makes from oil etc right?

In Britain, the government takes around 65% of the cost of a litre of petrol - so a little over 65p - and the oil companies take the other 35%. Cars that run entirely on electricity wouldn't be of great use to the government. Added to that, they also charge a shitload in London for cars that run on petrol to drive around the city.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

208. Comment #160144 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 5:53 pm

Stephen - Yet another argument in favor of less government intervention. Honestly, I don't know how Brits put up with the price of petrol. I currently live in the UK but can buy petrol on American military installations. I would only buy British petrol if my car was in desperate need of it.

If there truly is a car that runs on something other than oil (or consumes a lot less of it), then there has to be some other force besides oil companies keeping the technology suppressed. There is simply too much money to be made in that industry for the car companies to refuse to make it. Greed ultimately wins out over any form of market collusion.

Allan - I wrote a rather lengthy post in response but it seemed to have disappeared before being entered. I guess next time I'll write my responses in Word first....

I'll post again later.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

209. Comment #160149 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 6:12 pm

FightingFalcon-

I honestly am at a loss of words at how to respond

If only that were so.

Hey - you're catching on! Government is evil, albeit a necessary one. It's sole reason for existence is...

Yeah, yeah, heard it all before.
For YEARS.
I know it stem to stern.
Spare me, please.

Other Comments by Diacanu

210. Comment #160153 by IPV4 on April 13, 2008 at 6:19 pm

Colwyn Abernathy

WWeeeeellllll...not necessarily. Just research the short-lived demise of General Motors BRILLIANT little vehicle: the EV-1. It coulda been BIG, coulda been a contender. Those who KNEW about it wanted one. Big ol' waiting list. The infrastructure was ready for California consumers. What did GM do? Offered only leases with no option to buy, scrimped on advertising that was pathetic compared to its Hummer line. We HAVE the technology, consumers that know about it, WANT the technology. Where is it? Why are we wasting time and research on the infeasible hydrogen cell when electricity would be able to fill the gap UNTIL such technology is even remotely feasible? Oh, and the Tesla Roadster? DO WANT! :)

Right, I am very familiar with this car and the next generation version would of blown the doors off the oil industry but they(GM, and the powers that be) never intended to sell them in the first place , that is the reason why as you mentioned they were only leased and only offered in two states.I agree with you in regards with the hydrogen fuel cell , they call this "smoke and mirrors".

Other Comments by IPV4

211. Comment #160154 by Stephen Maxwell on April 13, 2008 at 6:24 pm

If there truly is a car that runs on something other than oil (or consumes a lot less of it), then there has to be some other force besides oil companies keeping the technology suppressed.

I wish there was, but what kind of company, where the government would fail to claim a substantial tariff? What I believe is that, without oil companies having a large field of control on the economy, the economy itself may collapse. I'm not that knowledgeable on the subject so I'd love to be corrected.

There is simply too much money to be made in that industry for the car companies to refuse to make it. Greed ultimately wins out over any form of market collusion.

There's probably even more money to be lost from the oil companies, though. :(

I fear it may be too late to dig ourselves out of this hole. I hope I'm wrong, though.

Other Comments by Stephen Maxwell

212. Comment #160159 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Yeah, yeah, heard it all before.
For YEARS.
I know it stem to stern.
Spare me, please.

This coming from a person who objects to everything German and Austrian simply because of a 13-year part of their history...

Ironically, I had some Bratwurst and Shiner Bock at a German restaurant today. It was delicious.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

213. Comment #160160 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Stepen Maxwell-

Ah, calm down.

The economy is fake anyway.

We've been floating on a big cloud of nothing for at least 30 years.

If all the oil evaporated tommorrow, there'd be some running around in circles and hair pulling for a few months, but the talking heads would gradually calm the public down, and lie our way back to fake consumer confidence that would become real, and poof, money out of nowhere again.

Then the electric cars will roll out of the showrooms.
Back to business.

All a big game.
Just a big fucking play they put on.
Stand back and MST3K it.
Taking it serious will just give ya ulcers.

Other Comments by Diacanu

214. Comment #160163 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 6:46 pm

FightingFalcon-

This coming from a person who objects to everything German and Austrian simply because of a 13-year part of their history...

No, not "simply", nor just that 13 year chunk.

I object to anything predatory and authoritarian, and those 2 countries have exported more than their fair share of those things.

Except the Volkswagon beetle.
That almost makes up for it all.
Great little car.

Other Comments by Diacanu

215. Comment #160164 by Goldy on April 13, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Sorry, I'm not into many Austrian/German things.
Something in the water over there, I dunno, they had a propensity for militaristic cookie cutter robots in a row stuff long before it went too far and became Nazis.

Methinks you're confusing Austrians and Germans with Prussians. Never catch Bavarians or Austrians being so authoritative! A rather wide brush there, old boy (speaking as one with an Austrian mother). Read The Good Soldier Svejk - that's the Austrian of the militaristic pre-WWI period. He was Czech.
My turn to be a tad aggreived!

Other Comments by Goldy

216. Comment #160169 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 6:54 pm

Goldy-

Methinks you're confusing Austrians and Germans with Prussians.

Ah, right, right.

It was the Prussian army model that made the English/American school system such a soul-crushing drone factory after all.

Other Comments by Diacanu

217. Comment #160173 by Goldy on April 13, 2008 at 7:06 pm

It was the Prussian army model that made the English/American school system such a soul-crushing drone factory after all.

And gave the British bobby his helmet :-)
http://www.britishpolicehelmet.co.uk/
Check it out - scroll down - think the date was 1863.

Other Comments by Goldy

218. Comment #160175 by Radesq on April 13, 2008 at 7:12 pm

F'ing Falcon

An Oligopoly has generally the same effect as a monopoly in stifling competition and innovation all to the detriment of the consumer and to the unjust enrichment of the cartel members. If mom & pop could get into the gasoline production business and undercut price they would quickly be bought out. Sound like any other industry you mentioned earlier? It is not free market capitalism it is merely power politics. While tree huggers and basically anybody would NIMBY an oil refinery in their neighborhood -- the petroleum companies have the political clout to get them built if they want to ... but why should they? Nobody else can afford to do it and keeping supply restricted increases the marginal return on every gallon they produce.

When you have a product that everyone wants, that is hard to substitute, in a market that is collusive and barren of real competition -- you no longer have a fair bargained exchange for value. You have a US economy that has been snake bitten and corporations with the only available antivenom.

edit: I wouldn't expect corporations as you describe them or their officers to act differently (in terms of some unwritten social contract to offer their product at some "fair" price other than the maximum they could get). That is precisely why government regulation of the market place is both necessary and desirable in many cases.

Other Comments by Radesq

219. Comment #160179 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Radesq-

It's all about the "liberty", to be a predator.

Then, the predators kick and scream like little girls when there's even an imaginary threat to that "liberty".

Seen it all before, superhumanly bored with it now.

Other Comments by Diacanu

220. Comment #160183 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:34 pm

AllanW

OK, let's try this again. This time, starting in Word…

Not true; the vast majority of Americans share the free market views you espouse. They have elected free-market, non-interventionist, no universal health-care etc parties since the early Sixties. As a measure of this look at the policies you mention by the current Democratic nominee-aspirants; you disparage them as being interventionist and I guess left wing. And in America they may seem so but the political spectrum over there is skewed heavily to the right. As a marker for you, both parties would be seen as at best centre-right if not extreme right wing in most European countries.

That trend is quickly changing and will probably have significant ramifications for the current election. With the exception of WWII, America has typically experienced a period of Isolationism following our involvement in wars. The Democrats and Republicans have combined to form an unholy alliance against free trade and illegal immigration, respectively.

A recent poll in The Economist is proof of this. 55% of Americans think that free trade is often harmful. 50% think that globalization has been bad for the domestic economy. 50% disagree that immigration has helped the economy grow. The same questions/responses were 30%, 30% and 50% in Great Britain. The poll was part of an article on Anglo-American attitudes and the article went on to explain how Great Britain is more in favor of globalization than America is. Republicans are only mildly in favor of globalization while Democrats are completely against it. They have reverted to the failed Protectionist policies of Isolationist America in the 1920s and want to reward American companies who keep jobs here. Both Democratic candidates have come out against NAFTA, although Senator Clinton in less certain terms since her husband authored the bill. Never mind the economic disaster that would result in the abolition of NAFTA and the reinstitution of tariffs. I can't believe that there are honestly people in the world who think that tariffs and government protection will actually result in a prosperous economy. Libertarians are the only force (if we can call ourselves that) left in America who vocally and vehemently support free trade. Republicans know that globalization is political suicide right now so they don't touch it. John McCain has mentioned it a little bit but I think tries to avoid the subject. It certainly isn't his strong point.

Of course the 'American way' meme is strong, of course the history and popular culture of the wild west and the pioneers is a strong one and of course there are elements in these memes and stories that pull powerfully at certain entirely human parts of our psyches so I can understand your point while being absolutely convinced that it represents the worst options for how to organise human societies in modern times. Every man for himself until someone stops you at the point of a gun is a crude, unnecessary and uncivilised way to live a life in my opinion.

You hit the nail on the head - America has a tradition of being a frontier country with a strong sense of individualism. This country was founded upon the idea that the government exists solely to do what we tell it to. When we were founded, Americans believed that the government only had the right to do what we allowed it do. Now, many Americans argue that the government can do anything that it isn't prohibited from doing in the Constitution. 9th and 10th Amendments be damned! We in America are moving from a nation where the individual tells the government what it can do to a nation where the government tells the individual what he or she can do. The end of this road is inevitably tyrannical rule of government. Governments simply do not give up powers that they obtain.

Many of us in America have a strong opposition to government imbedded in our psyche. States like Montana, New Hampshire and Vermont are home to violently anti-government militias, which is a phenomenon that you'll probably never find in Europe. We are strongly defensive over our civil liberties and typically don't give them up for anything.

So to start from a point that any government cannot deliver any service or good or be of any use whatsoever is to ignore the benefits that higher-level social organisations can and do deliver; it is a reversion to roving-band idealism.

I am not opposed to the idea of charity, but it must be voluntary in nature. I would certainly be opposed to any form of charity that requires taking my money and spending it on projects that I do not approve of. I am entirely convinced of the fact that everything the government touches will inevitably become corrupt, inefficient and worthless. Government-provided charity is horribly inefficient and could be much more easily provided through private charities and private donations. I don't understand why the idea of completely voluntary relationships is so anathema to so many people on this board.

Maybe I was unclear in my choice of words. The basis for existence of any corporation is currently within the powers of government to bestow, withhold or withdraw. Why would you have it any other way? Do you seriously want me to accept that the creation of any form of organisation endows it with an existence and power that from that moment on is untouchable by government? I'm sure that a moments' reflection will tell you that this would lead to anarchy.

As I said earlier, the $$ is the Ultimate Arbiter. Free and unregulated markets will not lead to anarchy. Corporations that fail to provide a product in a sufficient manner will quickly find themselves out of business. For consumers who continue to use companies that deliver insufficient products (e.g. Southwest Airlines not inspecting their planes) then the company cannot be blamed. It's akin to blaming a drug dealer for ruining your life. It's not the company's fault if you want to use a failed company simply to save some money.

'I will never agree to a company ever having a societal responsibility'. Why?

Because they are in existence for one reason - to make money. Should society object to the way that a company conducts its business, then they are perfectly able to boycott a company.

I would expect regulation in whatever form, as I said in my original post, to work towards moving actual market conditions towards those at which our economic models tell us the maximisation of utility occurs. The models work; I believe in the theory but the real world differs and can be made, through regulation, to approach ideal conditions.

And what if the point of this maximum utility is not the point of maximum efficiency for the company? What if they begin to operate at a loss? Or what if they operate at a level that causes them to experience less economic growth than they would experience if they followed supply and demand? Who will make up the loss - the government with taxpayer dollars? Certainly not with my money!

An illustration; how much would your personal economic productivity and growth be hampered if there were no police force, national defence force, fire service, healthcare system or public service organisation for roads, utilities etc?

I didn't mean to give the impression that I oppose the police, national defense force or the courts. As it is, those are the only three proper forms of government that I believe in. Beyond that, I do not believe in a purpose for government. The responsibility of the government is to establish a society in which Individuals can prosper. Guarantee property rights and let Individuals take it from there. All other functions of government are illegitimate and will only serve to hinder the economic growth and personal freedom of a nation while providing intrusive "benefits".

I'm enjoying our chat. I have wanted to discuss these issues (and others besides) on this site for awhile now as not only are they my own area of expertise (not being a scientist and all) but I believe they are the back-drop, the framing references for the issues we spend most of our time discussing here and are important therefore. Please don't think for a second that I'm aiming these notes at you. As I explained before, I'm not and I welcome a frank exchange of our varied viewpoints.

Again, I have to admit that my personal opinions are not (and never will be) the majority belief in America or anywhere else. I believe in a philosophy that is reprehensible to most people. I believe in true Capitalism - the only objectively moral philosophy in the world. People reject Capitalism because it represents personal responsibility and hard work; two ideas that many people are anathema to. It's the only system that doesn't discriminate, where you get out whatever you put in. Far too many people would trade safety and security for the meat grinder that is Capitalism.

So take my comments for whatever you consider them worth. But my kind is a dying breed - true personal freedom is a concept that few believe in anymore.

Take care,
FF

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

221. Comment #160189 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 7:38 pm

Yeah, the rhetoric all sounds so lofty.

Yet every single fucking time, it mutates into "I am the Ubermensch, now stand aside as I urinate on this homeless person".

Other Comments by Diacanu

222. Comment #160191 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:41 pm

Yeah, the rhetoric all sounds so lofty.

Yet every single fucking time, it mutates into "I am the Ubermensch, now stand aside as I urinate on this homeless person".

I really find comments like these pretty hysterical, especially considering that just last month I volunteered for Habitat for Humanity. Ironic that you'd mention a homeless person...

Just because I believe that I shouldn't be forced into charity, that doesn't mean that I don't continue to donate time and money to charity. Why people can't wrap the idea of volunteer vs. coercion around their heads, I have no idea.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

223. Comment #160195 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 7:46 pm

FightingFalcon-

I really find comments like these pretty hysterical,

A Randroid with a sense of humor?
I don't bump into them often.
Maybe twice, or thrice.

A Randroid who can't help but brag about something?
That I find in abundance.
:P

Other Comments by Diacanu

224. Comment #160197 by Radesq on April 13, 2008 at 7:48 pm

Laurence are you out there? Your definition of Libertarianism is rapidly losing ground. Dreamertarianism might be a better descriptor.

Other Comments by Radesq

225. Comment #160198 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:48 pm

When you have a product that everyone wants, that is hard to substitute, in a market that is collusive and barren of real competition -- you no longer have a fair bargained exchange for value. You have a US economy that has been snake bitten and corporations with the only available antivenom.

edit: I wouldn't expect corporations as you describe them or their officers to act differently (in terms of some unwritten social contract to offer their product at some "fair" price other than the maximum they could get). That is precisely why government regulation of the market place is both necessary and desirable in many cases.

Whoever said that companies have to offer products at fair prices? Companies don't offer a product at a price that will give them a break-even point. They set their prices at a point where they will be able to maximize efficiency - that is, make the most money.

The whining against oil companies in particular is my favorite. Oil companies could probably sell gasoline at $20 a gallon and people would still buy it. People will always need to get to work (as you pointed out) and will only give up personal convenience at a tremendous cost.

Opinions like yours truly crack me up. You want corporations to provide at quantities and prices that you set for them. You continue to curse them when they go under, never realizing that you are the reason for their collapse.

If a Shell and Exxon station are across the street from each other and one sells its product for less than the other, who do you think will get 100% of the profit? I know everyone is convinced of some massive oil conspiracy but market collusion has never worked. Even if all oil companies decided to raise and set prices at $3.50 a gallon (for example), there would reach a point where one company would go down to $3.40 and undercut everyone else in the market. A drastic fall in prices would follow, whereby the artificial nature of the market would disappear and companies would settle upon the correct market price.

Welcome to Economics 101. Pretty basic stuff here.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

226. Comment #160200 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:49 pm

A Randroid with a sense of humor?
I don't bump into them often.
Maybe twice, or thrice.

A Randroid who can't help but brag about something?
That I find in abundance.
:P

Ayn Rand is not even a member of the Austrian School, although she typically associated herself with them.

Nice try though.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

227. Comment #160203 by Radesq on April 13, 2008 at 7:54 pm

Falcon read the post next time before you comment. It is because corporations clearly behave as you say that regulation is neccesary. Jesus Maria Olazabal!* Pay attention when I am agreeing with you - it won't happen often so you have to be on the look out for it. Once again Libertarians take good idea to their logical extremes where they become nonsense. and you wonder why everyone thinks your ilk are kooks!

*lesser known relative of the Spanish pro golfer

Other Comments by Radesq

228. Comment #160204 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 7:54 pm

FightingFalcon-

Nice try though.

Oh please, this shit...

I believe in true Capitalism - the only objectively moral philosophy in the world. People reject Capitalism because it represents personal responsibility and hard work; two ideas that many people are anathema to. It's the only system that doesn't discriminate, where you get out whatever you put in. Far too many people would trade safety and security for the meat grinder that is Capitalism.

...is almost cut-and-pasted out of her writings.

Other Comments by Diacanu

229. Comment #160206 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:56 pm

Falcon read the post next time before you comment. It is because corporations clearly behave as you say that regulation is neccesary. Jesus Maria Olazabal! Pay attention when I am agreeing with you - it won't happen often so you have to be on the look out for it. Once again Libertarians take good idea to their logical extremes where they become nonsense. and you wonder why everyone thinks your ilk are kooks!

Sorry - I'm in a defensive mood tonight :-)

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

230. Comment #160209 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Oh please, this shit...


...is almost cut-and-pasted out of her writings.

Is it wrong?

I won't lie - her works have influenced me but she isn't the only person who shares my economic philosophy.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

231. Comment #160212 by Diacanu on April 13, 2008 at 8:03 pm

FightingFalcon-

I won't lie - her works have influenced me

There, was that so hard?
:)

Other Comments by Diacanu

232. Comment #160214 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 8:08 pm

There, was that so hard?
:)

The only reason why I'm hesitant to mention her in public is because one of two things happens: 1) people freak out and say something along the lines of "How can you possibly believe that?!?!" or 2) you're a Randian! As if simply agreeing with someone's opinions makes me their mindless follower. I guess in that case I'm a Rothbarian, von Misesian, George Washingtonian, Thomas Jeffersonian, Cato the Youngerian, etc.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

233. Comment #160215 by Radesq on April 13, 2008 at 8:09 pm

Apology accepted Captain Needer...

What about GOP protectionist like Pat Buchanan or Lou Dobbs? I believe the theory that free trade is good for growth -- in practice it is pretty worrisome though especially in the short term. I am generally supportive of immigration being of positive impact on the economy -- again there are short term problems in that arena as well.

My point is that the free market is never really free in the real world -- your classroom absolutist theories just do not work as a practical matter. There will be winners and there will be losers but the government does have to manage this so that your Montana and NH Militiamen can still afford to buy their bullets and there way too large reflective sunglasses when the black helicopters arrive.

Other Comments by Radesq

234. Comment #160218 by FightingFalcon on April 13, 2008 at 8:24 pm

Apology accepted Captain Needer...

Just don't force choke me....

What about GOP protectionist like Pat Buchanan or Lou Dobbs? I believe the theory that free trade is good for growth -- in practice it is pretty worrisome though especially in the short term. I am generally supportive of immigration being of positive impact on the economy -- again there are short term problems in that arena as well.

Ugh - two of my absolutely most hated political commentators. Lou Dobbs especially takes the cake. The man absolutely reeks of xenophobia that I'm surprised he didn't campaign for Tom Tancredo in the Republican nomination process.

The argument over free trade isn't on its economic benefits (which even xenophobic morons like Dobbs should agree with) but over stupid things like where our products are made. If companies are being patriotic enough. Or who makes products for a corporation. People like Dobbs and Buchanan would have us pay 10x more for a t-shirt just so that it can have a "Made in America by Americans" sticker on it. Ugh - who cares?!

My point is that the free market is never really free in the real world -- your classroom absolutist theories just do not work as a practical matter. There will be winners and there will be losers but the government does have to manage this so that your Montana and NH Militiamen can still afford to buy their bullets and there way too large reflective sunglasses when the black helicopters arrive.

Whoa there buddy - they aren't "my" Militiamen. I sympathize with some of their causes but I am definitely not one of them.

Perhaps my ideas are too Idealistic and could never be used practically. But someone has to be the counter to idiotic Communists who would have the state control everything :-)

And now time for sleep...

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

235. Comment #160221 by Teratornis on April 13, 2008 at 8:27 pm

Comment #160134 by Stephen Maxwell:

FightingFalcon, you do realise how much money the government makes from oil etc right?

It varies with the government.

In Britain, the government takes around 65% of the cost of a litre of petrol - so a little over 65p - and the oil companies take the other 35%. Cars that run entirely on electricity wouldn't be of great use to the government. Added to that, they also charge a shitload in London for cars that run on petrol to drive around the city.

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gasoline_usage_and_pricing

The price of gasoline (petrol) varies enormously around the world. The cheapest appears to be Venezuela where gasoline sells for five U.S. cents per liter. The Venezuelan government is spending heavily to subsidize its domestic gasoline consumption. Presumably if there were some magical cheaper alternative to liquid fuels from petroleum for a mobile power source, a nation such as Venezuela would have an interest in rolling them out as quickly as possible. I can't imagine what possible incentive Venezuela might have to throw away the money it could be making by selling its oil at the current world price if it had a cheaper way to placate its citizens' desire for mobility.

There are probably no magic bullets in transportation technology. Nature has been extremely ungenerous with things that are suitable for mobile power sources. Ever since automobiles were first invented, there have been continuous attempts to fuel them with something else, and nothing has outperformed liquid fuels from petroleum in internal combustion engines, from an overall system point of view.

The dependence on petroleum is even more dire in the case of aviation. We could run battery cars if we had to - they would just cost more and perform less well - but batteries appear to be right out for airplanes.

On the other hand, for stationary power sources, we have lots of interesting things to work with. The future appears to be a less mobile place, but with increasing ability to get things done without having to drag bodies around so much.

Transportation is a mature area of technology, which means the pace of technological innovation is very slow.

This is what makes peak oil such a looming (potential) catastrophe. Even an accumulating drop of 4% per year in world oil production would strike enormous blows at a world economy which is built around the assumption of ever-increasing oil supply.

For example, the stock market has pretty much valued every company based on the assumption that plenty of petroleum will be available for transport and feedstock use. Once the reality of peak oil sets in, investors will begin re-evaluating businesses whose business models only work when liquid fuel prices are at 1990s levels.

Already there are food riots breaking out around the world, due to the doubling of grain prices over the last couple of years. Grain prices follow oil prices because our industrial agriculture systems depend hugely on petroleum, as does food shipping, and when petroleum prices go up, demand for biofuels for transportation also goes up.

What is mere inconvenience for first-world motorists becomes a matter of survival for the rapidly increasing numbers of the world's poor who are getting priced out of the minimum calories needed to sustain life.

Personally, I don't believe anyone should be allowed to produce children unless they can reasonably guarantee their support, but of course such a suggestion cuts at the very heart of our most sacred right, namely the right to reproduce regardless of our ability to take responsibility. So it appears that as the full dimensions of the oil crunch take shape, tens of millions of poor people may end up paying the price for their ill-advised breeding.

Filling up an SUV with one tank of bioethanol from corn requires a quantity of grain sufficient to feed a family in, say, Kenya for a year. At some point drivers will be effectively fueling their cars with the bodies of the poor people who must starve.

Of course we all know bioethanol from corn (maize) is an energetic catastrophe, but that's the first biofuels technology suitable for large scaleup in the U.S.

The hope is that second and third generation biofuels may ease pressure on food crops, namely grasses such as switchgrass and miscanthus to produce cellulose for cellulosic ethanol (second generation) and perhaps someday algae (third generation) to produce lipids for biodiesel. Energy crop grasses can grow on marginal lands, and algae can grow in greenhouses in the deserts, using saltwater if necessary.

Don't hold your breath on the miscanthus and algae, they're years away from large scale, although we can't afford not to be working on them at a desperate pace. Even if transportation can all be electrified, we still need organic liquids for petrochemical feedstock in large quantities. Once petroleum becomes seriously scarce and therefore too expensive, we will have to grow our plastics and chemicals.

Other Comments by Teratornis

236. Comment #160225 by Radesq on April 13, 2008 at 8:31 pm

I only said "your" Militiamen because you first mentioned them. Best of luck to you FF, I won't be able to get any sleep if Mike Timlin continues to give up damn homeruns and loses this game for Dice K.

Other Comments by Radesq

237. Comment #160233 by Radesq on April 13, 2008 at 8:41 pm

What about hemp Teratornis? Could we make oil out of hemp? That'd be far out man.
If we are about to have a world food crisis because of peak oil/ethanol. What about hydrogen cars? Worldwide water shortage?
No stationary power should be coming from fossil fuels there are enough alternatives for that out there. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, water, nuclear, landfill gases higher efficiency superconducting transmission wires or "heaven" help us microwave transmission of energy...

Other Comments by Radesq

238. Comment #160271 by CruciFiction on April 13, 2008 at 9:34 pm

Later in this show, Maher did a number on religious cults, the Pope, and the Catholic Church:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=b_1yqk_d6nw

Other Comments by CruciFiction

239. Comment #160284 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 13, 2008 at 10:08 pm

Those damn bourgeois businessmen, oppressing me!

*puts credit/debit card in machine, gets gasoline*

How DARE they raise the price on me! I need this to get to work!

*puts credit/debit card in machine, gets gasoline*

They're stealing from me. This is an outrage. I, a mere proletariat, can only sit and watch as the money drains out of my wallet. If only the government would save me!

*puts credit/debit card in machine, gets gasoline*

It's theft! Theft! I can't live my luxurious lifestyle without this. I'm being ripped off.

*puts credit/debit card in machine, gets gasoline*

Prices went up again? I'm still going to pay for this, but I have a human right to gasoline at comfortable prices, and that's what is personally convenient to me. Only the government can correct this grave social injustice!

*puts credit/debit card in machine, gets gasoline*

PRICES ROSE AGAIN? THIS IS UNSPEAKABLE CORPORATE GREED! It's not too high that I won't pay, but damn--prices are supposed to be what I'm used to, what I'm comfortable with--not what I'm personally willing to shell out!

If only God the government would come down and save me from these evils!

Other Comments by Galactic Lord Xenu

240. Comment #160286 by Galactic Lord Xenu on April 13, 2008 at 10:14 pm

I'm also rather amused at the car company conspiracy. It sounds exactly like what the health nuts say about the medical establishment having a cure for cancer and such.

Other Comments by Galactic Lord Xenu

241. Comment #160295 by ZekeCDN on April 13, 2008 at 10:46 pm

FightingFalcon wrote:

Technically, Linux, Mac and Microsoft have an oligopoly on computer processing units - are we going to break them up too?

Forgive me for being pedantic, but technically that's wrong. Between them, Microsoft, Apple (Mac is just a trade name) and Linux control nearly 100% of the market for personal computer operating systems, not processors. [The processor oligopoly is mostly Intel and AMD, now that IBM has stopped selling PowerPC chips for personal computer applications.] The presence of Linux in that list is a bit of a misnomer, in that it's open source and not controlled by any corporate entity.

Despite the appearance of competition in the PC OS market, as you probably know Microsoft was convicted of abusing their de facto monopoly in the Justice Department's antitrust trial that began in 1998. Therein lies the typical problem with oligopolies ... an illusion of competition is maintained, but the market's self correction mechanisms are failing to function.

I too used to be a huge admirer of Ayn Rand's philosophy. At the risk of confirming a stereotype however, as I grew older I realized that her infinite faith in the marketplace was misguided. Perfect markets require perfect societies ... which require perfect men and women. In my view Rand's fundamental miscalculation was the corollary of Karl Marx's (the perfect system will give rise to the perfect citizen). I still prefer market solutions whenever feasible, but I no longer believe that they're to be preferred even when the empirical evidence indicates otherwise.

Unlike Marx, I still have great respect for Rand as a person though. In fact just recently I was thrilled to discover a trove of old video interviews of her on YouTube. One in particular stands out in my memory: she was appearing on the Phil Donahue Show--probably not long before her death in the early 1980s--defending her atheism in front of an openly hostile studio audience (and an always incredulous Donahue). Great vintage TV!

***

Back on topic, as for Bill Maher, I've been a fan of his comedy since the old days on HBO. He's a comedian, not a politician, so it's possible for me to look beyond his eccentricities (the pharmaceutical thing and his PETA board membership) and just enjoy the show. I'm really looking forward to his anti-religion movie, Religulous, coming out this summer.

Other Comments by ZekeCDN

242. Comment #160339 by Enlightenme.. on April 14, 2008 at 1:10 am

FF:
"...I know everyone is convinced of some massive oil conspiracy but market collusion has never worked. Even if all oil companies decided to raise and set prices at $3.50 a gallon (for example), there would reach a point where one company would go down to $3.40 and undercut everyone else in the market. A drastic fall in prices would follow, whereby the artificial nature of the market would disappear and companies would settle upon the correct market price."

I know everyone is convinced of some massive oil conspiracy but market collusion has never worked.

Then what is OPEC for?

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

243. Comment #160340 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 1:10 am

Some of you may recall that I posted and PM'd this comment to Quezcatol last night-

To the poster known as Quezcatol-

I would appreciate it if you would change your user name to something further away from my own. While it may have been inadvertent, the similarity in our user names may cause confusion, especially since I can tell from the contents of your few posts that our views are wildly divergent.

It is entirely possible that readers might mistakenly ascribe comments by one of us to the other. I'm sure both of us wish to be judged solely on the contents of our OWN posts, and not someone else's.

Thanks.

Quezcatol responded by PM last night, and this is what he had to say-

Die biatch!

Hmm.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

244. Comment #160349 by Enlightenme.. on April 14, 2008 at 1:26 am

Just seen a Nigerian politician on the news state that Biofuels is a crime against humanity.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

245. Comment #160354 by Philip1978 on April 14, 2008 at 1:37 am

Its Ok Quetz,

He will never have the following you have acquired neither can he spell The Name properly!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

246. Comment #160360 by AllanW on April 14, 2008 at 1:47 am

'A recent poll in The Economist'. I read that too and had a few problems both with the premise of the poll and the conclusions drawn. I think your comments in the succeeding paragraph contain the nub of the issue; it is politically expedient at the moment for both parties to SAY that they will be more protectionist of American jobs. It's an electoral pose. 'John McCain has mentioned it a little bit but I think tries to avoid the subject.' Exactly; neither side has abandoned free market positions but at the moment one side says they might tinker with regulation and intervention and the other side is keeping very quiet . I'm glad that you accept the point I made and I'm happy to agree that there could be a period in which it's poor tactics to be an open free trade advocate. On to the next point ..

'We in America are moving from a nation where the individual tells the government what it can do to a nation where the government tells the individual what he or she can do. The end of this road is inevitably tyrannical rule of government.' I entirely agree that a change is taking place between the citizens and the nature and style of government but disagree with your characterisation of what that change is. You capture it well in the gap between your two statements; 'I am entirely convinced of the fact that everything the government touches will inevitably become corrupt, inefficient and worthless.' and 'I didn't mean to give the impression that I oppose the police, national defense force or the courts. As it is, those are the only three proper forms of government that I believe in.' You will have to move away from the first stance towards the second more overtly in my opinion (and as you accept implicitly) if America is to remain a power on the world stage. Modern conditions demand it. The problem is that the vast majority of citizens feel disenfranchised with the political processes that currently pertain. How this plays out will determine how successful America is in halting the headlong slide into third-rate nation that it is currently on.

For me, the problem is to balance the personal freedoms and sense of entrepreneurialism that capitalist philosophies can support and engender with humanitarian structures and support that both curb the worst excesses of free market results and provide a means of bringing about the conditions to perfect the ability of markets to in fact deliver growth and prosperity. I repeat, the theories of market capitalism are useful. The problem is that the assumptions they make (perfect knowledge, market conditions, rationality etc) do not exist anywhere in real life so we must try to bring them about through interventions and regulation in whatever form is necessary.

A few links about related topics;

Interesting post about perceptions of income distribution that absolutely negates Randian ideas.

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/04/13/do-people-care-about-inequality/

A current NYT article about economic perceptions at the moment;

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14krugman.html?ex=1365825600&en=58d23f2779b8b70a&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

And another on the current economists zeitgeist with the trend moving away from non-intervention in markets;

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeff-madrick/the-end-of-the-age-of-mil_b_94228.html

Other Comments by AllanW

247. Comment #160365 by Quetzalcoatl on April 14, 2008 at 1:58 am

Philip-

Its Ok Quetz,

He will never have the following you have acquired neither can he spell The Name properly!

Well yes, plus I would NEVER use the word biatch.

5 sales so far, were you one of the paperback purchasers?

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

248. Comment #160689 by FightingFalcon on April 14, 2008 at 9:29 am

I only said "your" Militiamen because you first mentioned them. Best of luck to you FF, I won't be able to get any sleep if Mike Timlin continues to give up damn homeruns and loses this game for Dice K.

Fair enough - but a Red Sox fan? I used to be a very strong Yankees fan, right up until they let go my favorite player, Andy Pettitte. I still watch baseball regularly but don't really follow. Although I still hate the Sox :D

No stationary power should be coming from fossil fuels there are enough alternatives for that out there. Solar, wind, geothermal, tidal, water, nuclear, landfill gases higher efficiency superconducting transmission wires or "heaven" help us microwave transmission of energy...

I couldn't agree more. Absolutely no stationary energy should be coming from fossil fuels - there is no reason for it. I personally am a huge advocate of nuclear energy.

Forgive me for being pedantic, but technically that's wrong. Between them, Microsoft, Apple (Mac is just a trade name) and Linux control nearly 100% of the market for personal computer operating systems, not processors. [The processor oligopoly is mostly Intel and AMD, now that IBM has stopped selling PowerPC chips for personal computer applications.] The presence of Linux in that list is a bit of a misnomer, in that it's open source and not controlled by any corporate entity.

I knew that someone was going to take me to task on my use of processing units. I wasn't sure what term exactly to use, although I was tempted to go with operating system.

Unlike Marx, I still have great respect for Rand as a person though. In fact just recently I was thrilled to discover a trove of old video interviews of her on YouTube. One in particular stands out in my memory: she was appearing on the Phil Donahue Show--probably not long before her death in the early 1980s--defending her atheism in front of an openly hostile studio audience (and an always incredulous Donahue). Great vintage TV!

I've watched that interview many times mainly because its one of the view video interviews with her. It's unfortunate that Phil Donahue asks completely moronic questions and fails to understand even basic tenets of Objectivism. There's an interview with Mike Wallace back in the 60s where her Atheism is even more shocking.

Then what is OPEC for?

At least for America, the influence of OPEC is completely overblown. The #s fluctuate but the last time I checked, we get a significant amount of oil from our own country, Mexico and Canada. I believe Saudi Arabia was #2. OPEC faces the same rules that all other major corporations must face. Even if all OPEC nations charge $100 a barrel, there are non-OPEC members with a significant amount of oil production that countries can turn to.

Just seen a Nigerian politician on the news state that Biofuels is a crime against humanity.

The UN announced its opposition to biofuels (especially Ethanol) not too long ago. The idea was idiotic to begin with and now its causing famine in some African countries, not to mention increased prices for animals that feed on corn meal, e.g. pigs, cows, chickens, etc. Ethanol is not the answer and American and European governments need to stop subsidizing its production.

I think your comments in the succeeding paragraph contain the nub of the issue; it is politically expedient at the moment for both parties to SAY that they will be more protectionist of American jobs. It's an electoral pose

I certainly hope that you're right. The chances of a Democrat winning office in November are very high (assuming that the party can heal itself) and I'm deadly afraid of the economic consequences of their election. I'm afraid to see America revert to failed Protectionist policies that will cause an even greater recession.

You will have to move away from the first stance towards the second more overtly in my opinion (and as you accept implicitly) if America is to remain a power on the world stage. Modern conditions demand it. The problem is that the vast majority of citizens feel disenfranchised with the political processes that currently pertain. How this plays out will determine how successful America is in halting the headlong slide into third-rate nation that it is currently on.

You're right - I should clarify. I try to avoid speaking in absolutes but when it comes to issues like personal freedom and economics, I sometimes revert back to them. As I stated above, I believe in only three proper functions of government. The private sector has shown unwilling and/or unable to sufficiently provide these services, something that even Ayn Rand admitted. You simply cannot entrust the defense of Justice to private companies, although our courts today seem to be doing just as poor a job as a company would do. Beyond those three functions, I fail to see a reason for government intervention.

The problem is that the assumptions they make (perfect knowledge, market conditions, rationality etc) do not exist anywhere in real life so we must try to bring them about through interventions and regulation in whatever form is necessary.

The difference is that my ideas have never been tried, yet everyone is convinced of their failure. I'll admit that there is a chance that they could fail. I don't think humanity is ready for the type of Capitalism that I believe in. Too many people are susceptible to corruption, dishonesty, unfaithfulness, etc. A lot of American businessmen love Ayn Rand and consider Atlas Shrugged to be their personal Bible while at the same time behaving nothing like the businessmen in the novel. Open and honest dealings are a central tenet to Objectivism.

I'll read those articles but I loathe both Krugman and the Huffington Post. Krugman is literally as far away from me as you can get on the economic spectrum.

I read the articles - as I suspected, I disagree with Krugman completely. Pro-labor policies is not what this country needs.

The last article was the most disturbing though. I literally wanted to throw my computer out the window reading that garbage. How could anyone honestly look at the current crisis in the market and think that more government intervention is the answer when government intervention is the PROBLEM! We have an artificial currency backed up by artificial reserves with artificial banks printing money to cover our losses. Since the institution of the Federal Reserve and centralized government banking, the US economy has faced tremendous boom and bust cycles. This will continue for as long as the Fed is in existence. A 5 year old should be able to understand that simply printing new money to cover up for losses will result in disaster. Not to mention that the recent decision by the government to hand out stimulus packages is a completely worthless idea. Poor people do not stimulate the economy. If stimulus packages are to go to anyone, they need to go to the upper-middle class and major corporations, who have the ability to buy goods and employ people, respectively. The stimulus package given to poor people will be spent on credit card debt, which is precisely where we don't want it to go. All of that money will be completely wasted on people who have no sense of financial responsibility. Now we need government oversight to make sure that people understand the mortgages that they sign? Since when the hell did the US government become everyone's parent/guardian?

That last article royally pissed me off. I am completely opposed to Keynes and anything that even reeks of government manipulation of the market place.

Other Comments by FightingFalcon

249. Comment #160701 by Cwazy Cat Lady on April 14, 2008 at 9:45 am

That was enjoyable. Too bad it wasn't a longer segment.

I wonder if that little website plug has brought more people to the site... Josh?

Other Comments by Cwazy Cat Lady

250. Comment #160794 by ksskidude on April 14, 2008 at 11:50 am

I want to comment on what people have been writing about Bill and his rant od perscription drugs. While I disagree with Bill, I do think that his intentions are in the right place. However, what his is saying can be very dangerous, and ultimatley could cost a person thier life in they were to put to much stock in what he has to say about such things.
I would like to see Dr. Dawkins give Bill a talking to about this subject. I would imagine Bill would give Dr. Dawkins the respect he deserves and would atleast hear him out.

Other Comments by ksskidude