My 1st Blogiversary!

Its been a year since I started this, my very first blog.

Hooray! Strike up the band!  Bring on the symbols, trumpets and drums! Haul out the dancing girls! ...

...or just go back to doing whatever you were doing before, it won't make any difference. :p

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?

Fight Global Warming!!11!111!!!!

The great success of my first call to Help Fight Against Global Warming! has prompted me to renew the call to save the world!!!!!1111!1!1



10 Ways to fight Global Warming!!!!11!!!

1. Buy a Prius!

2. Buy local!

3. Don't eat meat!

4. Stop using electricity!

5. Buy fluorescent light bulbs!

6. Put solar panels on your roof!

7. Move closer to work!

8. Eat more zucchini!

9. Stop logging!

10. Don't reproduce!

Do your part today, by donating to me so that I can rid the world of one of the most evil plant murderers!!1

"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.

If I were going to be a fishing guide...

...I'd need to forget about targeting one species of fish.

 
I like fishing, but there are way too many negatives that would go along with being a guide. 

I wouldn't consider guiding professionally, but if I wanted to make a living at fishing, then what I'd do is:

I'd aim to become familiar with a few bodies of water.  Ideally those bodies of water would be close to each other and not too far from a population center (city).

I like many aspects of Madison, WI, and its few lakes would be a good place to be.  Lakes Wingra and Waubesa have lots of muskies, Mendota has lots of bass, and Monona has all sorts of fish.

Rather than target one species, which I'd prefer, I'd figure to try and cover those very few lakes.  Knowing how to catch each of the species that inhabit a lake would mean that I would not need to look only for clients that want to catch my preferred species.  Because of this I could increase my potential client pool to include anyone who wants to fish nearby.

Learning how each species is caught at each stage of the year would also increase my knowledge of fishing for my preferred species.

Rather than use a standard fishing boat, as in an aluminum or fiberglass v-hull, I would think that a modified pontoon boat would be quite a good idea.

Pontoon boats are primarily used by people who drive around a like while sitting down and entertaining friends.

If all of the sides and seats were removed, the pontoon boat would merely be a large floating platform.  And a big floating platform would be excellent for fishing off of.   Rod holders could decorate the back for when trolling is the way to go.  The console (steering wheel holder) could remain just ahead of the rod holders.  A big compartment could be sunk between the pontoons for carrying all of the different tackle for each fish species...

Being a fishing guide is not an appealing job.  But by using a highly modified pontoon boat and sticking to a small number of local lakes would mean that I could probably get lots of different people to hire me for a day, rather than need to look only for serious fishermen, who likely have their own boat anyway.

(Modifying the boat would be fun too.)

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....