General

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

Zerubbabel — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 05:50:21 GMT

"There is nothing in economics that tells us ahead of time what the size of businesses will be in a free market."

"There is nothing in economics that can tell us that businesses would be larger in a free-market than in a regulated market."

"We know that State regulations tends to raise the bar to entry to any market which will, predictably, reduce the number of competitors in the market and increase their average size."

You make three good points. One tells us what we can know about regulated markets; two tell us what we can not know about a free-market. This makes sense in that a regulated market has been all that we have known, so we can make empirical observations about it and know things about it. The free-market has never existed so we can not make empirical observations, only speculation.

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

Arvin — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 02:03:09 GMT

I think that it's going to rain next year, and maybe there will be some sunny days aswell. I live in Sweden, and based on some weather data I have, it will probably snow during the winter. Oh wait, I'm not keeping with the thread, I'm supposed to make predctions using some random data not at all related to my prediction!

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

Clayton — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 01:52:50 GMT

Please, I'm not an economist, but at some level this must be wrong. Each enterprise has a certain economy of scale. I know for a fact that coal-fired electric generation will not succeed at a cottage-industry size, even without regulation. Yet in certain geographical areas water generation could work on a Mom and Pop scale as long as regulation allows access to the grid.

Yes, I agree. But there is nothing in economics that can tell us that businesses would be larger in a free-market than in a regulated market. As noted before, if anything, firms are probably larger - on average - than they would be in a free market. If firms are not as large as they would be in a free market, that is only because government regulations can create artificial under-capitalization as well as over-capitalization. The consequences to economic efficiency are just as destructive either way.

Clayton -

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

Esuric — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 00:52:58 GMT

Or an econometrician.

lol

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

Zerubbabel — Mon, 21 Jun 2010 00:35:16 GMT

"Of course big government and big business go together."

Does this imply the exclusion of one without the other, or is it like "ham and beans go together"? I simply observed a dialog on the subject of integration that seemed to focus exclusively on government. Does not big business also indicate a trend towards integration/centralization?

"There is nothing in economics that tells us ahead of time what the size of businesses will be in a free market."

Please, I'm not an economist, but at some level this must be wrong. Each enterprise has a certain economy of scale. I know for a fact that coal-fired electric generation will not succeed at a cottage-industry size, even without regulation. Yet in certain geographical areas water generation could work on a Mom and Pop scale as long as regulation allows access to the grid.

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

Clayton — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 22:31:08 GMT

@ Clayton

In quantifying a generalized integration/centralization two other factors must be considered; a per-capita denominator; and the integration/centralization/globalization of business as well as government. As much as we might desire a free market where business and government are separate, the reality is that big-government and big-business often find common interest.

Of course big government and big business go together. It is the Marxists who set up the "free market = big business" narrative. There is nothing in economics that tells us ahead of time what the size of businesses will be in a free market. We know that State regulations tends to raise the bar to entry to any market which will, predictably, reduce the number of competitors in the market and increase their average size.

BTW that 60 minute piece featured a honest-faced electrician (not driller) (who BTW withstood being slammed across the room multiple times by 2000 lb doors, and has a small forehead scar to show for it) and a white-house appointed engineer, i.e. shill. Where are the actual drillers' testimony? At the end of the piece 60 Minutes juxtaposed BP's disaster losses against it's profits implying that the disaster was insignificant ... yet early in the show they portrayed BP as panicked about the overruns in drilling costs which led them to taking foolhardy risks to recoup the mere $25 mil in tools left at the bottom of the first well. In the end that 60 Minutes piece served only to demonize BP and squelch suspicions. But it just made me more suspicious.

Whether there's funny business going on or not, it's clear that this 60 Minutes piece is contributing to a larger media attempt to set up an "accepted narrative" on this incident.

My sentiment remains "deeply skeptical."

Clayton -

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

CoolUserName — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 20:42:01 GMT

@gocrew:

Okay here's a prediction:

In a hundred years we will all be dead. People will still be flawed creatures who will demand that a state be in power. Technology won't have changed nearly as much as it should have due to state imposed ip laws. We will still be living in a draconian society.

As far as the next 2 years, I don't think it makes much of a difference whether the state gives us a tiny bit more "rights" (privilages) or not. It will still be in control of granting those "rights" or privilages. So life will suck ass living next to people who are more than willing to give up any and all control to the state.

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

gocrew — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 18:08:19 GMT

CoolUserName:

1) 1987 - Stock Market Crash, 2) Early 1989 - Exxon Valdez Oil Spill, 3) Late 1989 - Berlin Wall Crumbles

1) 2008-09 Stock Market Crash, 2) 2010 - BP Oil Disaster, 3) 2010-2011 ?

Will we see some kind of change like a Berlin Wall Collapse in 2010 or 2011? Nullification? Secession?

You must make a prediction or it's no good. Like one of the posters said, stuff happens, then, later, more stuff happens. If we are willing to be generous enough with our interpretations, anything could be shoved into that third slot. After all, let's not forget that the Boston Celtics won the NBA title in '86 and came in second in '87... disturbingly similar to their '08 title and '10 runner-up finish. They even lost to the Lakers in '87 and '10, but does anyone really think there's a causal connection?

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

Zerubbabel — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:59:10 GMT

@ Clayton

In quantifying a generalized integration/centralization two other factors must be considered; a per-capita denominator; and the integration/centralization/globalization of business as well as government. As much as we might desire a free market where business and government are separate, the reality is that big-government and big-business often find common interest.

BTW that 60 minute piece featured a honest-faced electrician (not driller) (who BTW withstood being slammed across the room multiple times by 2000 lb doors, and has a small forehead scar to show for it) and a white-house appointed engineer, i.e. shill. Where are the actual drillers' testimony? At the end of the piece 60 Minutes juxtaposed BP's disaster losses against it's profits implying that the disaster was insignificant ... yet early in the show they portrayed BP as panicked about the overruns in drilling costs which led them to taking foolhardy risks to recoup the mere $25 mil in tools left at the bottom of the first well. In the end that 60 Minutes piece served only to demonize BP and squelch suspicions. But it just made me more suspicious.

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

Marko — Sun, 20 Jun 2010 14:39:50 GMT

Yeah, 50 sounds wrong but I do remembering hearing a stat that there were fewer nations than today... if you think about it, this is probably true with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Bosnia, break-up of the Japanese empire, the freeing of several former US possessions, the independence of India and other European colonies and so on.

Bosnia wasn't broken up.

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

Clayton — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 22:39:36 GMT

Clayton - "the Deepwater Horizon explodes for reasons unknown."

Go to Utube, 60 Minutes -- the blowout part 1. Go to 4:00 to the end. The reason for the explosion is known.

Watched it. I still don't think this says there was no funny business. I'm not saying there must be funny business but I find it spectacularly improbable that an oil company would fail to take seriously the consequences of such massive failures of safety measures.

Clayton -

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

chloe732 — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 19:47:02 GMT

Clayton - "the Deepwater Horizon explodes for reasons unknown."

Go to Utube, 60 Minutes -- the blowout part 1. Go to 4:00 to the end. The reason for the explosion is known.

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

LeeO — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 00:56:46 GMT

Whether this is "planned chaos" or just plain chaos, I don't know.

I think it's probably planned chaos. The US economy/dollar is being destroyed so we can be merged into a North American Union with the Amero for currency. And the BP strike has tipped the scales so the next climate treaty in Cancun will be binding. Just my pessimistic thoughts.

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

nirgrahamUK — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 00:44:43 GMT

I see, I guess the British Empire took the cake

Re: Interesting Historical Coincidences

Merlin — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 00:33:44 GMT

@nirgram

After listing Azerbaijan, the article goes on to write: “During World War II, Azerbaijan was part of the Soviet Union as the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic.”

See, why you see 100 countries? If you’ve ever played Hearts of Iron 2, you kind of believe that 50 number.