Self Employment vs. A Job

You'll Never Find A "Good" Corporate Job

Second, understand that economic growth is slowing. We are only growing at about 60% of the rate of the 1940′s and 1950′s.  Without that extra economic growth there are mathematically fewer employment opportunities and certainly less challenging ones. So whereas if you were a GI coming back from WWII Boeing would likely hire you as an aerospace engineer, today Boeing would maybe hire you as dataentrysman. If you’re lucky.

Finally, the Baby Boomer generation was absolutely HORRIBLE in terms of financial planning. Most squandered their inheritance from the WWII generation, blew what money they made on divorce lawyers, and are now the most participatory group in “reverse mortgages.” They did not save anywhere near the amount they needed for retirement which means…

Captian Capitalism points out that working for a company and advancing through the ranks on your way to success ain't happening.

I know people who can say that something like two of the people who have worked in a certain company during the last 30 years have officially retired with benefits.

I also know many people who have been fired on a whim (deserved or not) on orders from the corporate office.

Many of us look for corporate jobs in order to get a "safe, reliable" paycheck.  But it seems to me that working all your life for a company that may just fire you for being a few years from retirement or because of some new management trend is not any safer than hiring yourself.

The risks of losing everything with your own business seem to get smaller by the day.

---

Once I figure out the stupid software issues I have, I'll re-release my book, and open The Food Plot Store.  (I'm a good procrastinator.)

Bad News for Food Prices

California is having a drought.  An awful lot of food comes from CA. 

A+B= higher food prices

Wirecutter:

I can hear all of you out there saying “Sucks to be you, motherfucker!” Uh-huh. Just remember where a huge portion of your food is grown, no matter where you are in the US. It’s gonna suck to be YOU until we get some fucking water. Yeah, they can import some of your produce (that’s where your veggies come from in the winter) but you’re gonna pay dearly for that. Major suckage, folks.

Our cattle herd is the smallest it’s been since 1951. That’s beef. Our dairy herds here are huge but without water, there ain’t going to be enough silage to feed them. The dairymen are already talking about selling their herds to other countries because they can’t afford to feed them.

I would suggest to all my Patriot friends out there that you put in a fucking garden this year, even if you’ve never had one before or you’re gonna take a bigger hit in your budget than what you think.

Government is Bad; News at 11

Vox has a post on how our government is failing.

I had a post on Matt Forney's website, pointing out that the debate over more/ less government has been resolved long ago.

There can be no debate that less government is better.  It has been decided many times over.

Hong Kong vs Detroit

More government:



Less government:



So what should you do?

1. Stop bothering with morons
2. Stop funding the government

If only the people who voted for Romney in 2012 stopped paying their taxes, how long would our oppressive government survive?  What percentage of the government is funded by Romney supporters?

If you have willfully ignored the evidence to the contrary and want more government, then you too should put your money where your mouth is.  Start your own commune, and you can kick all us racist misogynists out.  Also: Fuck you slaver!

Evil

I've missed a lot since deer season began; one thing I noticed was a discovery of absolute evil.

Detroit's War on Small Business

Amidst a bankruptcy and a fast-dwindling population and tax base, the city has prioritized the task of ensuring that all businesses are in compliance with its codes and permitting. To accomplish this, Mayor David Bing announced in January that he'd assembled a task force to execute Operation Compliance.

Operation Compliance began with the stated goal of shutting down 20 businesses a week. Since its inception, Operation Compliance has resulted in the closure of 383 small businesses, with another 536 in the "process of compliance," according to figures provided to Reason TV by city officials.

How can that be any good for anything at all?

Is it not just blatant destruction of society?

No Income Tax = Success

Burt Folsom:

Shortly after the Civil War, Congress made the income tax a flat tax; then in 1872 Congress abolished the income tax completely. The war was over, and the U.S. would continue to stress individual liberty and limited government as the best way to happiness, prosperity and strong national character. As a nation, the U.S. decided to limit the outreach of government and pay off most of our Civil War debt.

When the rest of the world saw the U.S. emphasis on liberty and fiscal restraint, America became a magnet for the wealth of Europeans seeking a stable environment for their capital. The rise of the U.S. as a major world power was just around the corner.

No American income tax from 1872 until 1913. 

Guess which period of time it was when America caught up with the economies of the rest of the world?

More from Burt:

Those who favor class warfare sometimes cite Mark 10:23, which says, “Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, ‘How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God.’”

A closer look at the original Greek language clarifies God’s attitude toward the rich.

According to Greek scholar Kenneth Wuest, a better translation of Mark 10:23 shows that Jesus said, “How hard it is for those who keep on holding onto wealth to enter the kingdom of God.”

As 2 Corinthians 9:7 says, “God loves a cheerful giver.” Wealth is the opportunity to be a giver, and rich people can thus help people around the world.

Unemployment Rate

The Whited Sepulchre

Healthcare Spending Growth is Down

Obamacare is working!

The growth in healthcare spending is slowing!

In totally unrelated news, fewer people have full time jobs than they did before and therefore have less health insurance, and so spend less on healthcare than they did before.

In other words, success for Obamacare!

In 2011, national healthcare spending climbed 3.9 percent, the same as the year before. That was the slowest increase since the 1960s - See more at: http://lfb.org/today/obamas-2009-promise-of-cheaper-health-care-has-morphed-into-2013-price-hikes/#sthash.JAe7b9hf.dpuf

Even "Good" Laws Harm You

Most people think that there is a purpose for having a government.  Most people also think that their government does some good.  Even libertarians think that some government should exist.

But all that government does is funded, one way or another, by first taking from those who produce things and then spending it as they feel like it.

And while that's not pointed out or criticized nearly enough, the point of this post is to explain that even when the government extorts taxes for its funds and then spends them in ways you think are good, it is still hurting, rather than helping you.

There are two ways the government hurts you with "good laws," by forcing you to pay for them, and by preventing you from being as productive as possible.

Let's look at the example of owning a car and the amount of your time that is wasted by the government.

Let's say you buy a car, after paying the government its cut, you need to buy a car license; that's about a half hour of your time spent getting one.  Then you need a new driver's license every ten years; that took me three hours a few months ago, and that comes out to around 1/3 of an hour a year.  Some of us are required to have our car's emissions checked yearly, that'll take me another two hours per year, plus another hour, and some money for an o2 sensor because mine always go bad.  Then you need to get car insurance, which will also take several hours.

Maybe you think requiring all of those things, drivers licenses, car licenses, emissions, etc, is a good thing.  Perhaps it is, but have you ever seen a study comparing the time wasted to the alleged benefits of having these laws?

A thought experiment for you:  Speed limits supposedly save lives.  Since saving lives is good, we want to do whatever saves the most lives, right? 

Speed limits are arbitrarily set.  If they were set, say, 10 mph higher everywhere, we could get from place to place a bit quicker.  If you drove 10 mph quicker to, and from, work each day, you might save 5 minutes per trip.  5 minutes per trip, times 2 trips per day, and 5 days a week, means that a 10 mph increase in the speed limits would mean you have 50 more minutes per week to be productive.  50 minutes per week times 50 weeks in a year equals, about, 42 hours wasted commuting each year because of speed limits.  42 hours per year times 40 years of working equals about 70 extra days of your life spent commuting merely because speed limits are not 10 mph higher.

That might be a fine rational for you.  Spend 70 more days of your life commuting than necessary, and a few lives might be saved. 

But everyone is slowed with our current laws.  1000 people slowed by speed limits at 70 days per year is 70,000 days per year not spent growing food, sewing clothes, inventing medicines, or other wise producing.  How many lives were lost thanks to this law? 

When we hit the point where the days lost to slow speeds exceeds the lives allegedly saved by the speed limits, shouldn't we reconsider them?

Have you ever even heard of a study comparing the lives lost becasue of a specific law compared to the alleged lives saved?

No one ever considers the hidden costs, we only look at the numbers of deaths each year and wish we could do better.

And we still haven't gotten to the fact that the traffic judge, prosecutor, cops, secretaries, etc, the materials, buildings, and cars they all use are not creating food to eat, clothes to wear, or homes to live in.  Each of those lives and resources is unproductive, and therefore wasteful.

"Buy Local' is stupid

Lots of people support the idea of buying local goods and service rather than goods and services from elsewhere.  (Usually these people have Japanese cars; and their Japanese cars occasionally even have a "buy local" bumper sticker on them.)  This idea is stupid.

First some preparing thoughts.

Not all buying local is stupid.  If your only option is local, then no one will fault you for buying local.  And if your only option is something made a ways away, then that is your only option.

When the people who promote buying local seem to mean (excepting their own cars, and undoubtedly: their cell phones, tvs, computers...) is that buying locally supports your neighbors and is good.

There are many problems with this.

Buying local is not always an option, which means that you are either going to buy "distantly made" things or avoid that product altogether.

We can grow things like citrus fruits in places like New York, but the costs to do so will be nearly immeasurable.  We'd need heated greenhouses, sun lamps, etc.

Why is buying oranges from Florida worse than buying oranges grown in expensive (read as: required much electricity, manpower, and materials) greenhouses locally?

Why is are transportation costs worse than production costs?

Have you considered the transportation jobs lost by buying locally?

There are fundamental thoughts on economics ignored by avoiding the allowance of specialization.  Buy not allowing specialization (by not buying things made more efficiently) we would be made poorer by either not having many items or by producing them at much higher costs.

What the "buy local" crowd really seems to want us to do is to choose the local option when there is a local option easily available; shop at the local grocery store not Walmart, etc.  If they took their slogan literally they'd obviously need to give up their cars, tvs, cell phones, coffee, etc.

What this is is another way to feel good about doing good in a way that does not actually cost anyone any money or effort.  Or does it.

It seems to me that when comparing a local to non-local item, there are three options: the local item is better, the non-local item is better, the items are similar.

In the case of the local item being better than the non-local item, it makes sense to buy local, and so what is the point of a "buy local" slogan?

In the case of the non-local item being better, buying the local item instead means that a local producer is able to continue to make things worse, the better creator is not sustained, and you get a worse item.  The local producer is "helped," but everyone else is worse off.  In this case "buying local" is encouraging you to waste resources by buying worse items.

it is only in the case of the local and non-local items being of comparable quality and price that "buying locally" makes any sense.

***

Specialization is a wonderful thing.  It is by specializing one one, or few, things that we can all acquire the wealth generated when someone does not need to spend time doing lots of different things, and can spend all his time on one.

Buy whatever is best, at the best price, and resources won't be wasted making inferior products.

Manosphere Analogies Need Improvement

I was reading The Free Northerner's recent post, featuring links, and discovered a used car lot dating analogy.

Revisiting The Used Car Lot

exerpt:

If this was the case, the assertions above would be false since there would be enough supply to be a zero-sum game. To use the analogy in the linked post, the used-car lot is apt. Men are the buyers and women are the sellers. What we have right now is a car lot full of broken down rusted out vehicles that either don’t work or barely work with price tags that far exceed the representative value of each of those vehicles.

Now the price tags on these vehicles (women) are already much too high for their representative values. But the representative argument of these two posts is that men should work to pay MORE for these broken down rusted out vehicles. Perhaps another false assumption is at work: If men are willing to pay more, women will provide higher quality product. There are abundant proofs that this is not the case.

Many manosphere writers use analogies to explain points.  Comparing women to cars is a fine use of an analogy...if you are talking to a guy.

The purpose of an analogy is to say, "this thing you're unfamiliar with is very similar to this other thing you know all about."

I've bought cars.  Most of you guys have bought cars.  But how many women see "car" and roll their eyes and think no further?

(I like it that way.  I doubt that I'd have much interest in a girl who knows all about cars.  If she could take care of the cleaning, and I could take care of the cars, that would be much preferable to the other way 'round.)

If girls don't spend much time thinking about cars, and its been my experience that the subject is very uninteresting to them.  Much like when a girl brings up the pop musician of the month, and I lose interest in the subject.

On the other hand, the manoshpere, such as it is, exists to help men not women.   So the above example is fine, but i wouldn't use it in order to explain things to a chick.

Also, if you ever use a baseball analogy while talking to a girl, you are an idiot.

Minimum Wages

Last week I noted that raising the minimum wage is a stupid idea.  Why not raise it to $1 million per hour?

But I wonder, is there any argument that you could make for increasing the minimum wage to $15 or whatever, that you could not also make for $1m?

Logical arguments:

Minimum wages are stupid
The minimum wage should be hugely high

If you are not going to make one of those two arguments, then Shirley you must be admitting that the reason you proposed minimum wage is not higher is because having it too high would hurt the economy.  And so you've settled on an arbitrary number.

Can it be any other way?  Are there any arguments for $15 that you couldn't use for $1 million without admitting that minimum wages harm the economy?

One more example of progressive politics being about the gain of progressives at the expense of someone else.  And to heck with everyone else.

Obamacare will be Awful: Links

No kidding, right?

Socialized medicine is bad in Canada.

Universal healthcare is bankrupting Japan.  Let the elderly die, says one politician.

And our politicians, who lovingly voted for Obamacare, have opted themselves out of it.

How wonderful.


"Everyone has a right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no medicine and no care."

-Murry Rothbard

***

Also note that I was going to add a few select quotes from the linked articles, but Blogger was not allowing me to copy and paste.  Stupid Blogger.  Use Wordpress for blogging.

“everyone has the right to free medical care, but there is, in effect, no medicine and no care.” - See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.XwMKTzFG.dpuf

A recent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year. In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpu

A recent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year. In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.d

A recent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year. In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpuf

A recent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year. In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpufecent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year. In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of Obamacare.

Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpuf

A recent study on Canadian health care has been released late last year. In it, the authors examine the deleterious effects of socialized medicine on patient wait times and the delivery of care. It offers Americans a revealing glimpse of the future economic implications of Obamacare.
Released by the Fraser Institute, the December 2012 survey of specialists reveals that Canadians are now waiting 17.7 weeks between the referral to a specialist and the delivery of treatment. This is 91% longer than in 1993, when the institute began studying wait times.
In essence, wait times in Canada have doubled in the past 20 years. Sadly, the rationing of care that results in lengthy wait times for patients is a predictable consequence of government interference in the medical system.
- See more at: http://lfb.org/today/a-cure-for-obamacare-from-canada-with-love/#sthash.Zqh8Adkr.dpuf

Another Stupid Idea

Were I still taking politics and economic news seriously, the idea of a $15/ hour minimum wage would sound awful.  I'd say, "how stupid are the people proposing this idea?  Why not make the minimum wage a million dollars an hour instead?  What arguments are there for $15 and not for $1m?"

Of course this idea is stupid and would harm the economy.  And of course the people promoting the idea are stupid and/ or evil.  (see RWC&G on the lying going on to support this stupid idea.)

Instead of being annoyed by the stupidity, my first reaction upon hearing of this idea was to say, "HA! HA! Do it! It'll be hilarious! HA!"

It would be funny to see the unemployment rate shoot up and to see prices rise, while the supporters of this stupidity blame the evil big businesses and 1%.

Before we raise the minimum wage however, it would be nice to know what the actual unemployment and underemployment numbers are.  We obviously cannot believe the government's numbers.  Does anyone know where we can find the actual numbers?

If you do believe in the government's unemployment numbers, do you also support the idea of raising the minimum wage to $1 million per hour?  Would you mind lending me a few grand while we're at it?

China: A History

by John Keay

This is a great big book on the history of China.

The first point that jumps out at me is the fact that if you are not an emperor, then you'll be almost completely ignored by history.  Even if you are an emperor you'll likely get no more than a mention, unless lots of important stuff happened while you were in charge.

Then again, if we wanted to remember everybody, we'd have no time for anything else.

Another point of interest is that the name we know people by are different from what we think they are.  Confucius was not some guy's name.  His name was Kong.  The way it works "in the East" is family name, then first name or title.  Master Kong is "Kong Master," as in Kong then something approximating "fucius" for "master".  

The first Chinese emperor is known as Qin Shi Huang.  This is a "name" he picked for himself.  (I hear many Chinese pick the name they are known as as an adult, themselves.)  It actually means "first emperor."  It would be like referring to George Washington as "first president," and mentioning him by no other name or title.  First President was born in...  First President was a military officer in the French and Indian wars. First President lead the revolutionary army during the war of independence.

Apparently, the next guy was "second emperor."  And after that other dynasties took charge and changed their naming ideas.

Another interesting note is how much of China's history occurs after around 300 BC.  There is a chapter, or two, before then, but I don't recall anything about the earlier times.

One of the early empires was known as the Han.  Today the largest, numerically, ethnic group is the Han Chinese.

The Han empire was divided by some events into the "Former" and "Later" Han.  One of the most important characters in between the two empires was known as Wang Mang.  He was emperor for a while and wanted to reform the country to make it more prosperous.

He instituted price controls, divided the land equally among the citizens, and so on.

Guess what happened when he improved the lives of the poor by taking land from the wealthy, gave it to the poor, and did things like institute price controls?

A.  Prosperity ensued, Wang Mang was widely admired, and his dynasty lasted hundreds of years.

B. Nothing good, starvation and so on, his line ended with him, and all historians from the time despised him.

If you've visited this blog before, you don't need to be told which was the case.

That is not the only economic fact I found interesting.  A while before 500 AD land ownership was banned and whenever there was a war the citizens fled to wherever there wasn't a war.  Around 500 AD the various emperors determined that they needed to incentiveize staying in place, so they allowed private property to accumulate.  And the book explicitly stated that this was the last time, until Mao that China attempted to progressivize the country.  They seemed to notice that it never turned out well and they avoided much of it for around 1500 years.

Anyway, from my perspective, it seems that the various emperors can be grouped into four parts, in somewhat equal measure: the well meaning, the mean and awful, those with no interest in running an empire, and those who were too young and had regents run things for them, often to take up the title themselves and join one of the first two parts.

The succession of emperors takes up a large part of the book.  Their numbers and even the empires that they ran are too numerous to mention, or even understand after reading such a book.

***

This is a good book.  Even though I'm not as interested in India as I am in China I would read Keay's History of India if I was not already so far behind in my reading.

Recommended for those of you who are interested in lengthy readings on the whole history of China. 

The End is Near and its Going to Be Awesome

by Kevin Williamson

The book talk is on CSPAN's BookTV.  Watch it here.

The last time I saw him on BookTV I thought his book and its subject were interesting but I was disappointed when I read the book.  I may try again becasue this book could be very interesting.

Rather than go through the whole book talk, I'd like to highlight an early comment.

A recent immigrant from Bangladesh works near Kevin's office and he's noted that she has the same cell phone as the POTUS.  He's willing to bet that her children don't go to the same quality of school as the president's kids.

Cell phones and schools, one is run by the government and one is not.  Which is better?  Which is more egalitarian?  Why does anyone want the government to run anything?

"Market Failures"

When someone is asked to list the reasons for having a government, then he'll call you names, but after that (if you can get a response) the reasons for having a government include protection from monopolies and protection from "market failures."

Earlier I posted why I don't think monopolies exist, unless the government is operating it.

I'm very convinced that that is the case.  For example:

"In his masterpiece, Antitrust and Monopoly: Anatomy of a Policy Failure, Dominick Armentano carefully examined fifty-five of the most famous antitrust cases in U.S. history and concluded that in every single case, the accused firms were dropping prices, expanding production, innovating, and generally benefiting consumers."

Whenever a monopoly exists it is the government that is the monopolist or the government creating rules and regulations so that a favored company can exist as a monopoly.

No government: 1
Government: 0

If you hear about economics from people who favor large government, sooner or later you will hear about market failures.  The free market has faults, you see.

Wikipedia has a page on market failures.

Opening line:

Market failure is a concept within economic theory describing when the allocation of goods and services by a free market is not efficient.

That page goes through several different types of market failures, and generally has an example for each.

The first failure looked at is "The Nature of the Market."  And the failure example is monopolies.  Since we've already dispensed with that, let's move onto failure number two.

Failure two, "Non-excludability":

Some markets can fail due to the nature of the goods being exchanged. For instance, goods can display the attributes of public goods or common goods,....

Does anyone else find it odd that this "market failure" consists of public goods?  Looking at public goods as a market failure is silly becasue where public goods exist the market is controlled by the government, and therefore not "free" and cannot be a "free market failure".

Something that is controlled by the government and owned by the government is, by definition, the opposite of a free market. 

Blaming the market for something over which it has no control makes no sense at all.  And so, of course, those who oppose the free market do this all the time.  For example, those who oppose the free market blame our current economy on the free market despite the government deciding who can set up businesses, determining how much they can pay their employees, controlling the money supply, and so on.

The third type of market failure is called "externalities."

A good or service could also have significant externalities,where gains or losses associated with the product are borne by people who did not sell or purchase the product. In this case, the price mechanism fails to properly account for the true social cost because it differs from the private cost. These externalities can be innate to the methods of production or other conditions important to the market. For example, when a firm is producing steel, it absorbs labor, capital and other inputs, it must pay for these in the appropriate markets, and these costs will be reflected in the market price for steel.   If the firm also pollutes the atmosphere when it makes steel, however, and if it is not forced to pay for the use of this resource, then this cost will be borne not by the firm but by society.

This idea doesn't seem to understand how the world works.

There is billions of dollars of gold, diamonds, rubies, emeralds, etc. buried in the earth.  How much is any of that worth to you?  To put it another way, how much have you lost when some guy in India uncovers a ruby?  How much worse off are you?

If we wanted that Indian guy to pay "society" for his discovery, to whom would he pay?  How much would he pay?  If no one has had their limbs broken, or stuff stolen, as a result of his discovery, then why should he pay anything?

Once again we have a "market failure" which is only considered so when you count all of the world's natural resources as public goods.   And when they are public goods, how is the free market at fault?

Another externality example mentioned is that of traffic congestion:

Traffic congestion is an example of market failure that incorporates both of these forms of inefficiency. Public roads are common resources that are available for the entire population's use, ...

How can someone claim that too many cars, who's designs must meet government regulations, that must be built according to government regulations, which can only be driven by those who meet the government regulations, and can only be driven when abiding by other government regulations which are enforced by government enforcement officers, and which are driven on public roads is an example of a free market failure?

How could any example of the "free market" be any more the opposite of such?  Maybe if the government owned the companies who make the cars instead of merely owning a huge percentage of their profits?  ...oh wait.

Let's try an opposite example: by the logic that traffic congestion is a market failure we can conclude that the fact that we are not forced to buy the specific car the government demands is an example of socialist failure; in other words, there's almost no socialism here, therefore its an example of socialist failure.

By the the logic that concludes that traffic congestion is a market failure, we must conclude that up is down, down is up, right is left, and Eat, Pray Love is the greatest book of all time.

The fourth type of "market failure: is called "The Nature of the Exchange."

Rather than go through all of the points in this type, one part is called "principal-agent problem"

Common examples of this relationship include corporate management (agent) and shareholders (principal), or politicians (agent) and voters (principal).  For another example, consider a dental patient (the principal) wondering whether his dentist (the agent) is recommending expensive treatment because it is truly necessary for the patient's dental health, or because it will generate income for the dentist. In fact the problem potentially arises in almost any context where one party is being paid by another to do something, whether in formal employment or a negotiated deal such as paying for household jobs or car repairs.

 If you don't trust your dentist, then find another.

The people who came up with this market failures don't seem to understand how the free market works.  They don't understand it and then they criticize the flaws they perceive it to have, even though it doesn't have them.

(Incidentally, one of the Nobel Prize winning economists mentioned in this part of the Wikipedia page is Joesph Stiglitz.  He also wrote a book called "The Price of Inequality."  I pointed out that his thoughts on the subject are stupid.  No doubt his thoughts on market failures are stupid too. )

These enemies of free markets don't realize that this situation is corrected by the free market.  If your dentist persuades everyone to get the most expensive option all the time, then anyone who gets a second opinion will discover this and avoid the unscrupulous dentist.  When enough patients discover this, he'll lose all his customers or he'll be forced to stop the unsavory recommendations.  Get a second opinion and there is no "principal-agent problem."

Rather than go through the rest of the Wikipedia page's points, let's end an already long post.

***

In conclusion, there is no such thing as a "free market failure."  All the examples of these failures are actually failures of the government or public failures.  These failures come from the exact opposite of the free market, but are, nonetheless, used to criticize it.

The fact that "market failures" are generally accepted as being real things shows how much those who oppose the free market have dictated the thinking of the the general public.

There are no free market failures, there are only government failures which are called "free market failures."

The Full Rothbard

The Whited Sepulchre discovered an excellent glossary of economic/ political terms.

If I were new to the internet and looking for a username, then "The Full Rothbard," just might be the ticket.

The Full Rothbard

Many Libertarians are minarchists, which are akin to Classical Liberals, meaning they believe government should be limited to courts, police and national defense. Murray Rothbard claims that this can never happen because government, which is a monopoly, will never in practice limit itself, therefore government itself needs to be a function of competing institutions. Rothbard’s political philosophy is called anarcho-capitalism and arguments based on this theory go The Full Rothbard.

Murry Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State is very interesting, makes all the sense their is about economics, covers economics through every decision that anyone makes, but is a bit of a slow read.  I'm still working my way through it.

His idea of anarcho-capitalism is what I suspect is the best political theory.

Anarcho-Capitalism

Libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) that advocates the elimination of the state in favor of individual sovereignty in a free market.

As opposed to the shamocracy we currently have.  And upon which Historia Futura Praedicit covers well in another post.

Shamocracy

I use this term specifically to refer to the false choice offered by the oligopoly of the Republican and Democratic Parties in the United States. The two sides appear to offer different philosophies and policies but in the end the march toward an overreaching government that operates above the rule of law at the expense of the citizen continues regardless of who wins a particular election.

The Propagation of our Poor Economy & Society Explained

the state taxes men and places men in debt and taxes them again via the inflation tax

if you abolished the fed and ended the irs, women would no longer be able to butthext with abandon.

ben bernankiferierze et al profit massively off the base female desire for alpha fucks in the butthole and beta bucks, seized at gunpoint, to raise their thug offspring.

the welfare/warfare state is a big wealth-transfer business from men to women, and so naturally the fed funds it, as they must convert their worthless debt into physical property, which they do via feminism/alimony/sexual harrassment cases/welfare, all of which da ebernififiersz get a massive cut of.

the federal reserve created and funded the feminist movement to seize assets form men, while also seizing their future wive’s assess and ebebenrnakifying and deousling them in collegz lzlzozozozolozlzo

-GBFM

If you don't think your assets would be seized at gunpoint, then let me direct you to the difference between the top and bottom line of you paychecks, for the gun point: see what happens if you don't pay and resist arrest.

Taxes mostly come from those with jobs and pay for those who don't have them, and men have more jobs than women, ergo....

Huffington Post Comments, 6/21/13

alice sophia

 Are you satisfied enough now, GOPers? The GOP can't death spiral fast enough. 

Me

“How exactly, are the dems better?” 

JessWonderin 

if you cannot tell the diffidence . PLEASE stay away from the voting booth . . .  

Me

I notice that you couldn't come up with a reason. 

***

CSmith476

Hear, Hear.

Libertarians, in my mind, also often miss the fact that we are indeed stronger as a community. Is it not worth the requirement of storm shelters to see more human lives saved? Forget the cost in dollars, this "regulation" would save lives easily. Are more neighbors, friends, and family surviving a storm not incentive enough?  

Me

By your logic we should mandate 5 mph speed limits, mandatory exercise each day, banning of certain foods...

If it saves lives why shouldn't we end all air travel, ban all knives, baseball bats, ladders, and that evil water that some drown in?

CSmith476

 Well I suppose one could reduce my argument to something simplistic like that.
Of course nuance exists, but in the example at hand, storm shelters, the choice seems clear. 

Me

Its not "nuance". Your argument is that we should legally require things that save lives.

So why not a law mandating daily exercise? 

CSmith476

No, you were making a generalization about of my statement.  Extrapolating so short a statement to an entire way of legislating is absurd. 

Me

What is your argument if not: we should use taxpayer dollars to do things that save lives?

So, why not mandatory (taxpayer funded) healthy diets for everyone?

***

dprr

What? The Republicans have the majority, and THEY couldn't vote in enough numbers to pass the bill, and it's the Democrats' fault?  

Me

What? the democrats control the senate and THEY haven't mustered even one vote for any of Obama's proposed budgets? And its the republicans fault?

 dprr

What does that have to do with the food stamps vote? Oh, never mind. I see... you are a tea partier, and nothing you say has to make sense. All you can do is copy, paste, and substitute a few words.
Go ahead and repeat your brilliance on THIS now. The country is in awe, as indicated by the small percentage of Americans who approve of the tea party.

Me

If your going to answer your own question (incorrectly, I might add), then whats the point of posting the comment?

***
Easy123

Timmy please get off the computer until your mom gets home. Pfffffffft 

***
Me

Hey Obamacare supporters...keep your laws off my body.

arglebargle

 You're confused. This isn't about Obamacare.

Me

How can you say "keep your laws off my body" on one issue but not another?

***
 Rick4646

studies have shown higher minimum wage will stimulate our economy more because people spend more money and it's good for everyone...... I know you baggers want to keep people as poor as possible because the people you elect keep trying to pass bills to make it so; but at least look at facts before you post nonsense.

Me

Yeah. Yeah. We righties hate the poor! We want them all totally broke so they can buy all the junk we sell them with all of their......oh wait. 

***

Me

Hey Obamacare supporters...keep your laws off my body.

cats530

Don't worry - no one wants your body, misogynist. 

[editor's note: notice her user name! LOL!!!!]

Me

Projecting your own insecurities is the first sign of a problem.

Take the time to call someone who is qualified to help you.

Depression hotline: 1-800-273-8255

http://www.dbsalliance.org/site/PageServer?pagename=urgent_crisis_hotline

Good luck on your recovery!

Life's not so bad! 

Three Years of Hate & A Beautiful Anarchy

I just finished concurrently reading two books at once.  Three Years of Hate is a collection of blog posts from the now defunct blog In Mala Fide.  A Beautiful Anarchy is a collection of stories about life, politics, and economics from the director of Laissez Faire Books.

My decision to review them together comes from their similarities.  Both books review several other books.  (I now plan to read some of those reviewed, including: one from Hans-Herman Hoppe, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, and Frost's Freedom Twenty-Five.)

More interestingly, both of these books are about life and the authors' dissatisfaction with the way the world now "works." 

Three Years of Hate covers our society from the a young man who is unimpressed with various parts of our society.  The author has learned that our society doesn't work the way we were told it did, or the way id did for previous generations.  The life arc of an American man is no longer to go to school, go to college, get a job, get married and have kids.  All aspects of that are corrupted and worse than they were in the past.  Schools are more interested in teacher pay than teaching kids.  Colleges are interested in maximizing enrollment and not interested preparing students for life after school.  The rate of unemployment and underemployment is such that even finding a job is more difficult than it once was.  And to round it out, modern girls don't seem to resemble the better women of ages past.

Much of this book seems like a reaction to our crumbling society, and during the early part of the book I wondered if Three Years of Hate might not be one of the books that best describes why many young men are turning away from the direction the rest of society wants to direct us.  (Free Northerner has a similar statement about the book Men on Strike.)

This books spends some time criticizing people of nearly all political persuasions, including libertarians, amongst who the author of  A Beautiful Anarchy might be considered. 

Three Years of Hate criticizes the political ideology of libertarians but I am unconvinced that he is right about that, in part becasue of how well books like A Beautiful Anarchy show off how well the parts of our economy work when they are not interfered with by the government.

The technological progress of our world is astounding.  The fact that you can now instantaneously talk to anyone in the world is so amazing, and yet so common that we overlook it.

The two preceding books of A Beautiful Anarchy, Bourbon for Breakfast and Its a Jetsen's World, are even more filled with examples of the greatness possible when people are left to their own devices. 

But like Three Years of Hate, they point out the growing danger in our world.  This danger corrupts, threatens us, kills us, and forces us to pay for it, while demanding that we agree that its doing all of this for our own good.

Governments are the problem, and they have always been the problem.

Three Years of Hate may be called all sorts of unpleasant names.  Its author may be criticized for all sorts of things, but in some ways A Beautiful Anarchy is even more radical.

Three Years of hate will direct you towards why it is best that you enjoy the decline as best as you can, but A Beautiful Anarchy directs you towards questioning why we need any government at all, and indeed points out that the problems in this world are worse than you'd think.  Where else will you hear a national currency questioned, the Federal Reserve questioned?  Who else criticizes democracy itself?

But rather than the downer that is reading about the bad deal our society is A Beautiful Anarchy points to the good stuff, and then points and laughs at the bad parts.

The most memorable line from either book comes from A Beautiful Anarchy.  The author is in Nicaragua and is amazed at how well the black market exchange rate works when it is run by eight year old boys who are exchanging the currencies.  Many people think that not having a national currency would be too complicated, and the math would be too difficult.  The author wonders if having multiple currencies would increase our math skills up to the level of the Nicaraguan peasant children.

Both of these books cover the problems in this world.  They cover several of the same subjects, like Occupy Wall Street.  One author participates in a protest and then considers donating to one of the people the protest was against.  And the other author spends a chapter pointing out that that the OWS is close to being an important protest that could improve things, but instead they are unable to come up with a consist set of goals, and then those goals that are stated always seem to be goals that would give us more of what has caused most of our problems to begin with.

Both books are interesting.

Read Three Years of Hate to understand why young men are unimpressed with the world our parents have left us.  Then learn about some ways to enjoy the time you have.

Read A Beautiful Anarchy to understand that the problem is severe and terrible, and learn where to look for the great works that more fully explain where the problems come from.  A Beautiful Anarchy, and its two predecessors, also show us how to improve our lives despite our problems.  (The first chapter of Bourbon for Breakfast is about how to "hack" your government regulated shower head for improved performance.)

Two books, both with valuable information.