Free Capitalist Network - Community Archive
Mises Community Archive
An online community for fans of Austrian economics and libertarianism, featuring forums, user blogs, and more.

*** November 2012 low content thread ***

rated by 0 users
This post has 427 Replies | 17 Followers

Not Ranked
Male
Posts 7
Points 140
MichMAK2 replied on Sat, Nov 10 2012 11:27 AM

 

So an aquaintance of mine shares this on Facebook, and my gut reaction is to want to refute the claim. But then prevailing reasoning takes over and reminds me that I am unable to articulate a coherent and effective defense.

I think I am getting better at arguing my positions as I read more, but it is still disappointing to know that If I tried to debate the issue, I would probably fall into fallacy traps and appear to lose. So yeah, not going to respond. I just want to share on the off-chance someone would like to offer their view of a defense.

14 cents seems like a rather low number for the cost. People may think health care preiums are cheap for companies, but I doubt it. If the information I saw from my employeer was correct, they are paying close to 20k a year for preiums on me alone.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 496
Points 8,945

im not going to look that into it but think about it.  how many pizza's do they make a year!?  its probably over a billion a year company if the average pizza is a $10.   thats going to be 14 million $ obama care is going to raise on his taxes.

You dont own a business that successful as papa john's by eating $14 million dollars.

then lastly any predictions on how much obamacare will add on a business is impossible.  Its probably going to be a lot more than that.

Eat the apple, fuck the Corps. I don't work for you no more!
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Sat, Nov 10 2012 9:26 PM

Wow, this Petraeus thing smells of power-play all over it. From the article:

The FBI was looking into "an issue with two women and they stumbled across the affair with Petraeus," a U.S. government security source said.

Yeah, sure. That's what happened.

 

The FBI probe was triggered when Broadwell sent threatening emails to an unidentified woman close to the CIA director, a security official said, speaking on condition of anonymity. It was unclear what the relationship of the woman who received the emails was to Petraeus.

So, someone at the CIA told someone at the FBI to investigate Petraeus' mistress? Um.

Once Petraeus' name turned up in the investigation, the importance of the FBI inquiry was immediately escalated, as investigators became concerned the CIA chief somehow might have been compromised, the law enforcement official said.

But, of course, it wasn't escalated to the level of notifying the President. Note that DCI reports directly to POTUS.

At this point, it appears unlikely that anyone will be charged with a crime as a result of the investigation, the official said.

 

Threatening emails sent to a woman at the CIA who reported it to the FBI resulted in splattering Petraeus' affair all across the headlines a few days after the election. The President had no knowledge of any of this until just a few days ago. Will wonders never cease.

The FBI investigation began fairly recently ... when Petraeus would still have been in uniform

And nobody thought to mention anything to the President before he came over as DCI. Uh huh. And when they did finally tell the President, they made sure it was national news a few days later.

Representative Peter King, Republican chairman of the House of Representatives' Homeland Security Committee, said in an interview on MSNBC: "... I'm not into conspiracy theories but this one just doesn't add up,"

Yeah. I am into conspiracy theories... and, Republican or not, Crazy King is right... it doesn't add up. I have no idea what this is about, but something doesn't make sense here.

The FBI and CIA are mortal enemies. There is no camaraderie at all between these two organizations and they are constantly involved in power plays against one another. So, the idea that a woman at the CIA would dial the FBI for help after receiving a "threatening email" from Petraeus' mistress is just, it wouldn't even make a believable movie plot.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

I just got my 1/2 gallon bottle of raw milk at sprouts; whole milk!

It tastes good.

While there are benefits to drinking raw milk, i think that this vid does hype it up too much. nevertheless its a good vid.

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 630
Points 9,425

I am still not sure why the director of CIA sex life is of any concern. It is not like he is the head of red cross or a social worker department. If for example he beat his wife and he was in heading up the against domestic abuse department, then I could understand the concern. It is not like the CIA is known for its integrity.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Male
Posts 1,018
Points 17,760

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/

Come on guys, mises community blog project!

 

“Since people are concerned that ‘X’ will not be provided, ‘X’ will naturally be provided by those who are concerned by its absence."
"The sweetest of minds can harbor the harshest of men.”

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.org

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Mon, Nov 12 2012 4:32 PM

I usually have no sympathy for the muckety-mucks - particularly the generals that administer the murderous Pentagram's war machine - but I have to say that this Petraeus thing has invoked a tiny quiver of sympathy in my otherwise cold, unfeeling soul. Justin Raimondo has, I think, decoded the whole mystery.

We never did find out what was the dealio with Dominique Strauss-Kahn, though the most plausible theory there was it was just a low-down, dirty stunt by Sarkozy to secure his reelection against what would have been a formidable DSK challenge.

But I think this Petraeus thing is relatively cut-and-dry by comparison. Petraeus was not sufficiently pro-Israel (this is equivalent to being anti-Israel in the minds of the Zionist fanatics). The American-Israel lobby  and its gestapo apparatus in the intelligence agencies decided something had to be done about it. Enter Paula Broadwell. Let he without sin cast the first stone.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 496
Points 8,945

Education lesson number 1 for the day:

 

 

https://mail-attachment.googleusercontent.com/attachment/u/0/?ui=2&ik=1f62346c0c&view=att&th=13af6f0468a022e1&attid=0.0&disp=inline&safe=1&zw&saduie=AG9B_P8kGT8c8JvDMrh7b9V9O_Ln&sadet=1352763031326&sads=qhgqMqtKZEQiWjlRx4cLFH9_GcY

war is good for prosperity!

 

Lesson Numero DOS!  just popped open my study guide for my accounting class...

Chapter 7

1.    Which of the following never depreciates?
 
a.    Equipment.
b.    Furniture & Fixtures.
c.    Land.
d.    Buildings.
 

Im learning soooo much today.  Goto war to boost the economy and funnel as much money as possible to purchase land because it cant go down.  Today i learned how to run the fed and be president of the US.  What did you do today?

Eat the apple, fuck the Corps. I don't work for you no more!
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 38
Points 655
SoNowThen replied on Mon, Nov 12 2012 8:58 PM

Amazon Ordered To Pay $252 Million In Back Taxes

Walmart Health Care Premiums To Rise Up To 36% For Employees

If you have any faith in humanity left, I'd invite you to read the comments on both of those articles. That should cure you.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Male
Posts 2,439
Points 44,650
Neodoxy replied on Mon, Nov 12 2012 9:18 PM

@Grant

... How exactly is it that land never depreciates? That almost sounds like a bad econ joke...

At last those coming came and they never looked back With blinding stars in their eyes but all they saw was black...
  • | Post Points: 35
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Nov 12 2012 9:26 PM

Neodoxy - that is what economists were saying before the crisis - of course, using historical data as proof.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 496
Points 8,945

and its now a bad accounting joke.  This practice is still being used and is accepted by the GAAP.  Just another reason why so many businesses failed during the recession.

Eat the apple, fuck the Corps. I don't work for you no more!
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Nov 12 2012 10:05 PM

I just realized Joseph Salerno was in the Keynes v. Hayek rap.

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,288
Points 22,350
Aristippus replied on Mon, Nov 12 2012 10:07 PM

He...was...playing...Mises...you didn't realise?

The Voluntaryist Reader: http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com/ Libertarian forums that actually work: http://voluntaryism.freeforums.org/index.php
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Mon, Nov 12 2012 10:17 PM

I only saw Mises from the back when he was helping Hayek. Him and Say.

  • | Post Points: 5
Not Ranked
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

I've been reading about Orthodox Marxism recently, and one of the core aspects about it is that it makes the claim that Marxism is a science. I Googled the definition of science in Google's Dictionary, and here it is:

"The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"

Okay, so under that, I suppose both Marxism and Libertarianism could be considered a "science." Thoughts?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 100 Contributor
Male
Posts 907
Points 14,795

AE (which is value-free) is a science, though it eschews experimentation. Libertarianism, OTOH, is all about value, it's a system of beliefs. Very roughly, the former tells you how to pick means to achieve ends, while the latter tells you what ends are worthy.

The Voluntaryist Reader - read, comment, post your own.
  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Tue, Nov 13 2012 1:59 PM

A solid debunking of an old blog post where a physicist supposedly disproves economics:

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.ca/2012/11/murphys-law.html?m=1

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Nov 13 2012 3:20 PM

:-( :-( @ "economic growth"... particularly the part where he starts talking about virtual reality as having something to do with this mysterious "growth".

1) Growth is not an essential ingredient of free market theory. In fact, growth is just an unwanted by-product of the fact that it takes time for solutions to problems to actually be applied to those problems. Once the steam-engine is invented, it takes quite a bit of time before steam engines actually begin solving people's problems and having a significant impact on reducing the cost-of-living. Calling it "growth" is masking - almost reversing - the true nature of the phenomenon.

2) Growth is not even a proper end. People desire satisfaction of their wants but whose wants are satisfied by "growth". Perhaps you can argue that a taxing authority that can cut a larger slice of the larger economic pie without rousing the suspicion of the unwitting plebes is satisfied by growth. But I can't think of anybody else who is.

3) As for the virtual reality thing, this is a blatant misrepresentation of the concept of economic satisfaction - satisfaction is not "tingling the pleasure centers of the brain", it is removing felt uneasiness of any kind. Virtual reality is only a factor in enhancing one's leisure time... think of computer games as they are with present technology. Otherwise, the idea of people laying around in Matrix cocoons zapping themselves with pleasure jolts is ... science fiction nonsense and doesn't even merit discussion.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Tue, Nov 13 2012 3:27 PM

Still, the rest seems valid.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 496
Points 8,945

FDR Economics - This month in 1932 FDR signed an executive order to move Thanksgiving a week earlier in hopes that people will start their Christmas shopping and get the economy out of the depression.

Sometimes i wonder if Obama is even trying to get us out of this recession.  Hello OBAMA!????!  Move Christmas around and  lets shake this economy up!

Eat the apple, fuck the Corps. I don't work for you no more!
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Tue, Nov 13 2012 3:56 PM

@grant: You hush up. Don't be giving them any more tyrannical ideas than they already have.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

I've been thinking about starting to read Peter Kropotkin. Anybody have any suggestions?

  • | Post Points: 35
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 232
Points 4,905
fegeldolfy replied on Tue, Nov 13 2012 10:04 PM

http://youtu.be/LcvLHHMC4iI

^video on the debt from "seeprogress"

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Tue, Nov 13 2012 10:07 PM

SM - how about reading some AE books first?

  • | Post Points: 20
Not Ranked
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

...Who says I haven't?

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 232
Points 4,905
fegeldolfy replied on Tue, Nov 13 2012 10:44 PM

Could someone read and understand Henry Hazlitt's "Failure of the New Economics" even if they have a limited understanding of Austrian economics?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 8:35 AM

Fair enough.

Anyway, here is an interesting article on why an individual cannot really cause mass destruction all by himself:

http://www.kk.org/thetechnium/archives/2012/11/myth_of_the_lon.php

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 8:56 AM

Just a heads-up: LibertyHQ is slowly chugging along, and I hope to allow registration by the end of the month.

  • | Post Points: 50
Top 200 Contributor
Posts 496
Points 8,945

History lesson on why wages rise - "its a system called 'welfare capitalism' and companies basically bribed their employees not to join unions."  -  there you go people.  The only reason wages rise, other than unions, is to bribe the people too stupid to join unions from not joining unions.  What a joke.

Eat the apple, fuck the Corps. I don't work for you no more!
  • | Post Points: 35
Not Ranked
Posts 1,711
Points 29,285

When you're talking about how fiat currency/central banking causes booms and busts to someone, and later on when you bring up how Hong Kong is free-market capitalist and "look at how successful they are," when they ask why Hong Kong is so successful when they are on a fiat currency system, what do you say?

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 9:42 AM

Grant - please call that out. Just flat-out. Be like "That's wrong. Wages rise because of productivity increases"

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 75 Contributor
Posts 1,133
Points 20,435
Jargon replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 10:12 AM

Wheylous I trust you'll be plugging LHQ on every nook and cranny of the politosphere?

Also, just browsed through your articles and noticed that you didn't reference Kevin Carson? Why not? In my opinion, one of the best selling points of liberty is helping us understand how badly we're getting screwed by the regulatory system. Carson is excellent at helping to understand how un-free our markets are and what free one's would look like. He's great on land politics, healthcare, labor unions, all some of the ostensible "weak spots" of a free market, all revealed to be manipulated by the state for skewed outcomes. Have you read Studies in a Mutualist Political Economy?

Land & Liberty

The Anarch is to the Anarchist what the Monarch is to the Monarchist. -Ernst Jünger

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 257
Points 5,000

@Wheylous's post of the article The Myth of the Lone Villain

Initially I thought this was going to be about the division of labor, but the author doesn't really go there. He really misses the point:

 Always the lone evil genius works in a high tech haven, hidden from others, all by himself...The madman's electronic door hatch probably crashes once a month, particularly if the madman just invented it. So can you invent and keep operational the death ray? No. Way.

As technology develops, it will become cheaper and easier to create your own hidden high-tech haven. It follows that inventing and maintaining an operational death ray will also be cheaper and easier than it is today.

What he misses is the fact that defense technology will develop, as well. We will have better ways of detecting and preventing crime before it happens. So even though the weapons themselves will be easier to make, it will be more expensive to make weapons that will be effective, weapons that can get around the defense mechanisms. Maybe someday the good guys can even create shields that defend against nuclear explosions, who knows. It is this that will make the lone villain's plans less likely to be executed.

  • | Post Points: 5
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 4,987
Points 89,490
Wheylous replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 10:52 AM

Jargon - I am far from done. Also, I am only one individual collecting the lists. If I had some help the lists would be a lot more thorough. I will implement a feature where users can suggest articles.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 10 Contributor
Male
Posts 6,885
Points 121,845
Clayton replied on Wed, Nov 14 2012 12:54 PM

Bob Wenzel misses the mark on email advice.

No. If you're the mistress of the CIA, you don't secure your communications with Google or Yahoo. The root problem is that the emails can be read by the FBI or Yahoo or Gmail or anyone at all. In other words, encrypt your shit. This is the head of the goddamn CIA we're talking about, not some marketing exec having a fling. And while you may not be the head of the CIA, I think it's bad advice to say "use Google, not Yahoo."

How about some solid advice: encrypt anything you don't want people other than the recipient to be able to read. If Google or Yahoo can read it, the FBI can read it. It is my opinion that the digital surveillance capabilities of USG are underestimated by several orders of magnitude in the mainstream press. There are tools out there that can help you with this.

Now, this won't stop traffic analysis (checking what IP you're using etc.) However, if your communications cannot be read, traffic analysis is of very little value because they won't have "evidence" of anything to arrest and charge you, anyway (which is where traffic analysis matters). If you're doing the kinds of things where even traffic analysis is a threat, you need to be thinking at a professional level of security. There are tools for evading traffic analysis but you really need to start to understand security holistically at that point. Unless you like jail.

Clayton -

http://voluntaryistreader.wordpress.com
  • | Post Points: 5
Page 4 of 11 (428 items) « First ... < Previous 2 3 4 5 6 Next > ... Last » | RSS