tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post2539771647266886200..comments2024-01-15T12:16:41.302+00:00Comments on HousingPANIC - The Housing Bubble Blog with an Attitude Problem, 2005 - 2008: HousingPANIC would like to congratulate Barack Hussein Obama on winning the Presidency of the United States of Americabloggerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06585266242070350399noreply@blogger.comBlogger179125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-54174415649702104092008-06-14T23:14:00.000+01:002008-06-14T23:14:00.000+01:00Bitterrenter,BTW, the very basis of liberalism is ...Bitterrenter,<BR/><BR/>BTW, the very basis of liberalism is that:<BR/><BR/>(1) Society is capable of self-management;<BR/><BR/>(2) Government is not the reason for order in society.<BR/><BR/>Hobbs argued for the need of a Leviathan to give law because he was defending Monarchy! It's rather ironic that you call yourself a "liberal" and then take up Hobbs' argument. Thomas Paine (one of the guiding philosophical lights behind the American Revolution) had this to say:<BR/><BR/>A great part of that order which reigns among mankind is not the effect of government. It had its origin in the principles of society, and the natural constitution of man. It existed prior to government, and would exist if the formality of government was abolished. The mutual dependence and reciprocal interest which man has in man and all the parts of a civilized community upon each other create that great chain of connection which holds it together. The landholder, the farmer, the manufacturer, the merchant, the tradesman, and every occupation prospers by the aid which each receives from the other, and from the whole. Common interest regulates their concerns, and forms their laws; and the laws which common usage ordains, have a greater influence than the laws of government. In fine, society performs for itself almost everything that is ascribed to government.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-82469125131752760752008-06-14T22:55:00.000+01:002008-06-14T22:55:00.000+01:00Bitterrenter,I see, you are back to your empty pol...Bitterrenter,<BR/><BR/>I see, you are back to your empty polemic assertions again.<BR/><BR/>"You're right. Government is bad and wrong. We should instead defer to a system of every man for himself and let the priorities of a society set themselves."<BR/><BR/>We actually do live in a world where every man is first and foremost for himself. The experiments to create "The New Socialist Man" failed, and failed miserably. The only real choice we have is between a system where nobody has special privilages vs. a system where certain participants are given special privilages and the power to force others to do their bidding, whether such a privilaged class is called Master, Lord, Peerage, comrade or government officials is quite immaterial.<BR/><BR/>"It's never been done before ever in the history of civilization, but we might as well try now. Especially since the world we live in was built under a system of a strong central government setting the priorities with the voting approval of the people. A government with quite a successful track record I might add."<BR/><BR/>What country do you live in, anyway? The United States was built on the principle of limited government. Not "strong central government." In fact, the very fact that Western Civilization has proven itself such a success over the past 500 years over all stripes of oriental despotism (read: strong central government was a common trait in the East) was precisely the decentralization and lack of overall government monopoly. Political fragmentation is a good thing for liberty and freedom for the idividual.<BR/><BR/>"Strong central government countries that are still in existence have produced the first world countries. That includes the US, Canada, Japan and European countries. Weak, small governments, the third world. "<BR/><BR/>The US had much faster economic growth rate when it had a less strong and less centralized federal government. You can easily compare the per capital income growth rate before vs. after the Hoover-FDR years: 2.5% per anum vs. 0.25% per anum. Canada also had one of the weakest central government for much of its existence. Even to this day, Quebecoise can secceed if they choose to do so. Japan's big centralized government only brought it militarism and national catastrophe in the 1930's and 40's. Post-war Japanese government is a much much smaller one than the one before. West Europe had smaller governments than Eastern European countries in the second half of 20th century; the divergent development came in stark contrast. <BR/><BR/>Like I mentioned before, much of the success story of the Euro-centric Western Civilization has been due to the lack of big centralized government. For example, when the centralized Japanese government decided on a course of closed-door policies by the last Bakufu government, tens of thousands of Japanese christian converts were murdered by the state and Japanese economy went into a spiral of decline, until Commodore Perry's arrival. When centralized Chinese Ming government decided on high seas ban, that was the end of Chinese marine time industry. Whereas. . . when the Italian Columbus couldn't find funding for his west-bound project in Italy, he could find funding from Isabella of Spain, and his cohorts were on the verge of getting alternative funding from English Crown too. BTW, the royals were acting as private investors investing for their own portfolio, although what's private royal treasure vs. what's public treasure gets a little blurred just like in socialism: where the leader's property and power ends. When Spanish Inquisition kicked out Jewish bankers in the same year (as Columbus' embarkation for the New World), they could find new homes in the fragmented Europe: Netherland became their home, and the center of world commerce. When Louise XIV invaded Netherlands and threatened to pillage that country, the same financial houses moved to London, which in turn became the center of world trade and commerce. When the Kaiser and Hitler threatened London, New York was ready to receive that wealth. These episodes of escapes could not have happened in the centralized Islamic world, or the centralized Japanese world, or the centralized Chinese world. Their histories were replete with government depredation on commercial successes, and turning the economy back to the dark ages.<BR/><BR/>Yes, in times of prosperity, the ignorant socialists of Europe tried unification, as if the wild asperations of some Prussian aristocrat or maglomaniac Austrian/Bavarian national socialist were really worth pursueing. EU is about to fall apart, the Germans are demanding locally issued currencies. Collectivism simply doesn't work.<BR/><BR/>"What you advocate is chaos."<BR/><BR/>That's a common misconception. In reality, it's the government's ill-conceived interventions in the market place that creates chaos. Ludwig von Mises wrote on this very subject more than half a century ago ("Planned Chaos"). Frankly, you argument against freedom and liberty because "they would bring chaos" is sounding more and more like the soviet apparatchiks and the Chinese communist dictators who brought tanks onto the streets to suppress their own people. <BR/><BR/>"You can do that because the strong central government created so much stability in your life. You have no clue what the alternative would be like. But I can guarantee you wouldn't like it despite your belief in the kindness of your charitable neighbors."<BR/><BR/>You have no clue what my life has gone through. You may sit on your butt and hope the government delivers your next meal, or the government school bus picks you up before the next flood reaches your door . . . I don't. In fact, there's a far greater chance of government thugs shooting you dead the next time when they knock on your door just like those tragic mandatory evacuation episodes. <BR/><BR/>"You have no clue where<BR/> The complexities of modern life make the system you propose not only unworkable but impossible to manage."<BR/><BR/>It's precisely the complexities of life that makes it impossible for government remote decision making in lieu of eaching individual voting with their feet and with their money every single minute of the day. Life was too complex for the government to manage even before the modern era. That's why people routinely moved to the frontiers, away from the seats of government, in search of liberty and freedom. The modern life is even more complex, and even more prone to have government create chaos in its meddlings. <BR/><BR/>Glad at least you no longer cling to the fantasy that it was government that gave us roads, utility, schools, etc. etc. all of which were available long before government involvement . . . and subsequent government involvement only led to monopolies that delivered lower quality at higher cost to consumers. Now you are clinging to the value of government as the source of stability. In other words, the old Hobbes "Leviathan" argument of the 18th century. You should read up on Locke vs. Hobbes, and see how John Locke completely debunked Hobbs. Here is a great quote from John Locke, the father of liberalism: "It is only with the greatest conceit that one attempts to FORCE individuals to pay for a roduct or service after they have opted NOT to pay." What you call "stability" is really preying on people's fear of insecurity. Ben Frnaklin had this to say: those who would trade liberty and freedom for security shall deserve neither. <BR/><BR/>The dramatic contrast in real (gold price adjusted) per capita income growth in the US in the 70 years since Hoover-FDR vs. the 70 years before them show that old Ben was exactly right. After 70+ years of socialist false security, we are on the verge of losing both liberty and security, and losing out birth right as Americans under the US Constitution. The idiots who think liberty and freedom are bestowed by the government are certainly not helping matters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-87214224589742932422008-06-14T20:24:00.000+01:002008-06-14T20:24:00.000+01:00Bitterrenter,Here's a video clip of Judge Napolita...Bitterrenter,<BR/><BR/>Here's a video clip of Judge Napolitano's address on where the ultimate source of liberty should be, whether from the government blessing or an innate element of humanity . . . a very important point not only on taxation but also on whether the GWB administration should have the right to look into your life without court order:<BR/><BR/>http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3088003906279330520&q=patriot+act&ei=KfVTSMSnOaHuqgOS1uD2Dg&hl=en<BR/><BR/>If you believe government is the ultimate source of liberty and freedom, you are well on your way to serfdom.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-84709778955178938122008-06-14T19:38:00.000+01:002008-06-14T19:38:00.000+01:00You're right. Government is bad and wrong. We shou...You're right. Government is bad and wrong. We should instead defer to a system of every man for himself and let the priorities of a society set themselves. It's never been done before ever in the history of civilization, but we might as well try now. Especially since the world we live in was built under a system of a strong central government setting the priorities with the voting approval of the people. A government with quite a successful track record I might add.<BR/><BR/>Strong central government countries that are still in existence have produced the first world countries. That includes the US, Canada, Japan and European countries. Weak, small governments, the third world. <BR/><BR/>What you advocate is chaos. You can do that because the strong central government created so much stability in your life. You have no clue what the alternative would be like. But I can guarantee you wouldn't like it despite your belief in the kindness of your charitable neighbors. The complexities of modern life make the system you propose not only unworkable but impossible to manage. However you can continue advocating for something that has been soundly rejected all over the world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-61342504652264719412008-06-14T17:57:00.000+01:002008-06-14T17:57:00.000+01:00Abb,Exactly! Until people realize that the govern...Abb,<BR/><BR/>Exactly! Until people realize that the government is not the solution, it's the problem! no amount of horse switching is going to make any difference . . . all the horses are owned by the same people and rigged for a dog-and-pony show. They are all bent on robbing from the middle class and working families at gun point for the benefit of the ultra wealthy, who use the government as the collection agency. The bigger the government, the bigger the debt, the bigger the interest payment, the greater the ultra wealthy and ultra powerful's control over the lives of everyone else.<BR/><BR/>I don't have an IQ as high as yours, only got 140, but even I can see the nonsense for what it is.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-86989666270806640222008-06-14T17:29:00.000+01:002008-06-14T17:29:00.000+01:00Bitterrenter,BTW, your writings are showing that y...Bitterrenter,<BR/><BR/>BTW, your writings are showing that you are indeed a stingy person who doesn't give to charity voluntarily. Most community fundraisers, especially those for food banks, do not require tux at all. They tend to be very informal affairs. The last one that I attended, I showed up in sweat shirt and khakis. There's no name recognition conferred. Every attendent just go there as if going to a normal restaurant; the hotel/restaurant is donating their food and staff time. On top of the normal meal cost (which the venue is donating to charity instead of taking in as revenue), every attendent is free to leave a check for however much the donor is comfortable with. You can attend for as little as $35 a person (yes, these are usually nice restaurants/hotels). Of course, think of the poor and homeless in winter holiday season, especially during this economic down turn, you are encourage to donate as much as you are comfortable with, without ever being pushed. Nobody gives speech. You will be sitting with your family and friends, just like a normal restaurant meal; no talks about charity necessary unless you want to. Try it later this year, and you will see the places usually packed by normal people without any motive for name recognition. There is no registry or plaque; only call ahead to reserve because they usually have to serve the meal in multiple turn-overs for each seat, often one turn-over each hour for 4-5hrs. So don't take up the table for too long. Bring the check, have a nice light meal with your family, and then get out there without delay, with the satisfying knowledge that some homeless and/or poor people somewhere in your community will have a few extra meals :-)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-91574699676639289292008-06-14T16:12:00.000+01:002008-06-14T16:12:00.000+01:00Do you consider a mafia that takes money from the ...Do you consider a mafia that takes money from the community by extorsion, then distribute 13% of the take to the local orphanage so that they can have the next generation recruits, a form of savagery or a form of advanced civilization? Do you really celebrate when the next bomb goes off at a store that refuses to pay the blackmail? If you are a mafia insider, you might.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-4280357199925552462008-06-14T16:08:00.000+01:002008-06-14T16:08:00.000+01:00"Over 85% of money given philanthropically is from..."Over 85% of money given philanthropically is from the GOVERNMENT. I'd rather have the government, the LEADERS we elected, divvy up the cash "<BR/><BR/>Don't you see something wrong this picture? How can it be philanthropy when the men in charge are giving away other people's money, while at the same time drawing a hefty salary from the same pool of money? Do you honestly believe it's better to give $1 to some bureacrats and have them give 13 cents out of that dollar to the needy after pocketing 87 cents themselves, instead of say, just give the $1 to the needy to begin with?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-91955220310777719192008-06-14T16:04:00.000+01:002008-06-14T16:04:00.000+01:00"And as we've become MORE liberal, our freedoms an..."And as we've become MORE liberal, our freedoms and conveniences have increased. That liberalism is completely linked to strong leaderships or GOVERNMENTS that have directed the resources and the policies of advanced cultures towards MORE liberalism. "<BR/><BR/>No, what you are describing is Totalitarianism and Fascism: the advancement of total control by the government. Yes, there were lovers of Totalitarianism and Fascism: at the Mussolini government made train run on time. LOL.<BR/><BR/>Since you like big centralized strong leadership so much, guess who had the slogan "One nation, one people, and one leader"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-22994501230464069602008-06-14T16:00:00.000+01:002008-06-14T16:00:00.000+01:00"Take a look at the world. The countries with the ..."Take a look at the world. The countries with the strongest, largest governments are the most advanced. Countries with weak, small, ineffective governments are still third world. That's the best evidence of the triumph of BIG government over your voluntary contributory world."<BR/><BR/>That's complete nonsense. You are not only ignorant of history but also ignorant of the world in general. China's FDA employs over 200,000 people, whereas that of the US only has a few hundred people. Which country has safer food? At the height of cold war, the East German Stasi (the big central state security organ, their equivalent of KGB) fully employed 1/5 of that country's population. Was East Germany a more successful state than West Germany? Only in the 1980's CIA report. LOL. North Korean government is much bigger and have far more control over its citizens than the South Korean government even today. Which country is more successful? By the way, Kim of North Korea routinely gets 98+% votes in the elections, as did the East German and soviet bosses :-) As Stalin once said, it doesn't matter who votes, who gets to count the votes is what really matters :-) When the government controls the economy, voters have no choice but to vote for the incumbents.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-74741698923588793902008-06-14T15:53:00.000+01:002008-06-14T15:53:00.000+01:00Bitterrenter,"It's not emotion that makes people s...Bitterrenter,<BR/><BR/>"It's not emotion that makes people see the political ideologies differently, it's the empirical evidence of what their policies do to people and society. "<BR/><BR/>Then how do you explain your own repeated assertions about history that were exactly the opposite of the empirical evideces? That's why there is a saying: those who ignore history are doomed to repeat them . . . because they once again go down the path of emotional logical fallacy that historically proved wrong again and again.<BR/><BR/>"We're ALL liberals. The ideas of freedom, opportunity and self-determination are LIBERAL ideas. Otherwise we'd still be monarchies or live under a feudal system. "<BR/><BR/>I do consider myself a liberal, in the classical Jeffersonian and Madisonian sense. The so-called "liberals" in the popular American use of the word since the early 20th century are not liberals at all. How do you square freedom and self-determination with the ideology that government officals can take anything from you and tell you what to do? There is nothing liberal about taking the fruit of labor from the working families and give it to the super rich on "cost-plus" basis (i.e. guaranteed profit; the more wasteful the project the more profit) doing things that make the working families less independent (e.g. government sanctioned monopolies). <BR/> <BR/>"there's NO entity that can do as much for so many as an organized central government. "<BR/><BR/>The correct satement would be: There is no entity that can do AS MUCH HARM as an organized central government. Think about it, a central government far away from locales is by definition an Imperial Government. Just like a vote in the UN can not possible always co-incide with the interest of the people of the US, a vote in the entire US can not possibly always co-incide with the interest of the people of California and the Dakotas and the Georgians all at the same time. Some local majority is going to have their will overwritten, and it's not because of the apriori protection of local personal freedom either, but because some lobbyists bought off some politician far far away! The ultimate wet dream of big centralized government running things on the ground right now of course is running Iraqi oil fields from DC, half a world away. Guess how successful that has been?<BR/><BR/>Imperialism and Feudalism don't work nearly as efficiently as the free market place. Socialism is just sugar-coated feudalism as it postuates government officials taking wealth and power from individuals. Due to the territorial monopoly nature of feudalism (including socialism), imperialism is its inevitable end stage game. Government impositions are inefficient, so market participants will try to escape from the territory under such a monopoly; the feudal/socialist state would have no choice but to become imperialistic and expansionistic, thereby bringing its own downfall, assuming internal collapse due to inefficiency doesn't do it in first. That's the nature of a mafia/feudal state.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-23883006316953184572008-06-14T15:32:00.000+01:002008-06-14T15:32:00.000+01:00Bitterrenter,Your typical ignorance of history is ...Bitterrenter,<BR/><BR/>Your typical ignorance of history is making yourself calling the black white and the white black (while accusing others of doing that). Private road building (Turnpikes) was one of the earliest stock market bubbles in the US history (very similar to railroad bubble and internet bubble later on). Before that, typical earliest colonial towns and settlements were founded as joint stock companies. Here is the real history on how utility companies worked in the late 19th century, a case study on the Gas and Light Company of Baltimore, where the term "natural monopoly" was invented: <BR/><BR/>The Myth of Natural Monopoly<BR/>http://www.mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_3.pdf<BR/><BR/>Just to save your time, here's the excerpt starting from page 47:<BR/><BR/>[i]The history of the Gas Light Company of Baltimore is that, from<BR/>its founding in 1816, it constantly struggled with new competitors. Its response was not only to try to compete in the marketplace, but also to lobby the state and local government authorities to refrain from granting corporate charters to its competitors. [/i]<BR/><BR/>[i]In 1880 there were three competing gas companies in Baltimore who fiercely competed with one another. They tried to merge and operate as a monopolist in 1888, but a new competitor foiled their plans: "Thomas Aha Edison introduced the electric light which threatened the existence of all gas companies." From that point on there was compe-<BR/>tition between both gas and electric companies, all of which incurred heavy fixed costs which led to economies of scale. Nevertheless, no free-market or "natural" monopoly ever materialized.<BR/>When monopoly did appear, it was solely because of government<BR/>intervention. For example, in 1890 a bill was introduced into the Maryland legislature which "called for an annual payment to the city from the Consolidated [Gas Company] of $10,000 a year and 3 percent of all dividends declared in return for the privilege of enjoying a 25-year monopoly." This is the now-familiar approach of government officials colluding with industry executives to establish a monopoly that will<BR/>gouge the consumers, and then sharing the loot with the politicians in the form of franchise fees and taxes on monopoly revenues. [/i]<BR/><BR/>Your idea that government led the way to build the way to build public utility is completely anachronistic. Notice, the particular private Baltimore company was founded in 1816, more than 70 years before government sanctioned consolidation and monopoly was put in place in 1890. Government's late participation mostly dealth with guaranteeing monopoly profits and wasting tax payer money on boondongles building bridges to nowhere. That includes the so-called "Rural electrification" program of the early 20th century. Rural Americans had electricity since at least the late 19th centuries. They generate their own electricity using steel windmills wherever it made economic sense; look at any painting and photos from that era; the landscape was dotted with windmills. The "Rural Electrification" program was literally the bridge to an island with hardly any residents program of its time. The government sanctioned utility monopoly received the tax money on cost-plus basis; i.e. guaranteed profit (the higher the cost the more profit), from which kickbacks were doled out to politicians. Where windmills and ferry would have made more ecnomoic sense, those tax-wasting government sponsored programs served to kill the windmills and ferry, and extend the power of the monopolies.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-49796817940632737332008-06-14T07:45:00.000+01:002008-06-14T07:45:00.000+01:00It's to the point where I skim your posts.There mo...It's to the point where I skim your posts.<BR/><BR/>There most certainly was not infrastructure and utilities before the government and society made it an imperative to create them. Whether it was building a road in the 1800s or rural electrification in the early part of the 20th century, public goods have NEVER just popped out of the earth. It has always been the leaders of the town, the city or the country (the GOVERNMENT as it were) that decides how we organize and civilize. You're just talking out your ass at this point.<BR/><BR/>In your world black is white and night is day.<BR/><BR/>It's not emotion that makes people see the political ideologies differently, it's the empirical evidence of what their policies do to people and society. That's how we make the decision on who to vote for. You can say that there's no difference in the ideologies or claim that conservatism, libertarianism or whatever else you people have chosen to call your cult of selfishness and greed seeking a name is superior to a collectivist liberalism but the historical evidence is firmly behind the latter. <BR/><BR/>Why don't you go research how liberal policies result in improvements of societal health under every measure known to social science? It's easy. Look around. All the things you take for granted are the result of liberal policies, even your personal freedoms and rights. We're ALL liberals. The ideas of freedom, opportunity and self-determination are LIBERAL ideas. Otherwise we'd still be monarchies or live under a feudal system. But you can't see it because liberalism WON a long time ago and now we're just arguing over HOW liberal we're going to be. it'll never be how you want it ands it hasn't been for centuries. You can't argue that your way is superior because there's not been a time like that for ages. <BR/><BR/>And as we've become MORE liberal, our freedoms and conveniences have increased. That liberalism is completely linked to strong leaderships or GOVERNMENTS that have directed the resources and the policies of advanced cultures towards MORE liberalism. <BR/><BR/>Take a look at the world. The countries with the strongest, largest governments are the most advanced. Countries with weak, small, ineffective governments are still third world. That's the best evidence of the triumph of BIG government over your voluntary contributory world. Despite your fairy tales about all the republicans fundraisers you attend to give back to the little people (you think that's even close to being believable?) there's NO entity that can do as much for so many as an organized central government. Over 85% of money given philanthropically is from the GOVERNMENT. I'd rather have the government, the LEADERS we elected, divvy up the cash rather than some republican idiot who would use it all to build golf courses.<BR/><BR/>You better run though. You must put on your tux to get to one of those fabulous fundraisers you and your family-who-don't-use-societal-services attend that would end the need for political leadership if only we saw the wisdom in savagery.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-14847661770245846992008-06-14T07:35:00.000+01:002008-06-14T07:35:00.000+01:00Congratulations! You just threw out the rascals! ...Congratulations! You just threw out the rascals! (for another set of rascals)<BR/><BR/>And in 4 more years you can do it again! And it will feel SO GOOD!<BR/><BR/>My IQ is >150 so I really don't understand how people with IQs <130think. So help me out here...<BR/><BR/>At what point will this blatant, repetitive pattern become obvious to you?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-83749630277878276822008-06-14T04:38:00.000+01:002008-06-14T04:38:00.000+01:00Bitterrenter,Roads, water distribution systems/wel...Bitterrenter,<BR/><BR/>Roads, water distribution systems/well maintenance companies, even electric utility companies, and schools all existed long before the government got into any of those businesses. In fact, what happened was utility service providers inviting government sponsorship in order to set up local monopolies and keep out competition. The result was higher cost and lower quality of service for consumers, but higher profit margin for the incumbent utility companies, just like any other monopoly in any other industry.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-40246066467674724962008-06-14T04:33:00.000+01:002008-06-14T04:33:00.000+01:00Bitterrenter,"We wouldn't have to coerce people to...Bitterrenter,<BR/><BR/>"We wouldn't have to coerce people to contribute if not for selfish conservatives. If the tax code were voluntary only suckers would pay"<BR/><BR/>If you call all voluntary contributors "suckers," then obviously you wouldn't contribute and you are extrapolating from your own inclinations. It's rather refreshing to see you call yourself "selfish conservative." I wouldn't be so hard on your; if the money I contribute to the charity can motivate you to do something for the poor and the hungry, not out of the goodness of your heart but because you are paid by the charity, that's fine by me. I wouldn't send some jack booted thug to beat down your door and force you to contribute as much as I do . . . because the cost of hiring the enforcer is probably more than hiring you to get the work done any way.<BR/><BR/>"none of the republicans would kick in a penny. "<BR/><BR/>The last time I went to a charity brunch, it was a non-partisan fair, with Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians and plain non-partisan individuals all pitching in voluntarily for the good of the community. I took some of the family members along, and chalked up the contributions in lieu of the wasteful family gift giving that I always had a distaste for. Man, the flaming "liberals" in the family were mad because some anonymous homeless and hungry people were getting over a thousand dollars for food instead of their own brats getting the annual plastic junk from China. <BR/><BR/>"And we do determine the amount of cooperation and coercion by who we elect to make policy."<BR/><BR/>Then you must be thrilled about your cul de sac neighbors voting to share your car, your house and your wife . . . if you have none of these three, if you really are a bitter renter instead of a hired shill trolling on behalf of some rich banker sucking off the blood of the working families, then how happy are you about roommates taking a vote on taking liberty to your food and beer in the fridge?<BR/><BR/>"The little foray into tax-cutting of the last 30 years have left us broke and crumbling. That's what the people get for voting in republicans who neglected our society."<BR/><BR/>Out of those 30 years, 12 had a Democrat as the president (Clinton 8, Carter 4). Out of those 30 years, the chamber constitutionally designated as the origination place for revenue bills, the US House of Representatives, was controlled by the Democrats for 19 years (all the years excepting 1995-2006); that's 19 out of 30 years. You have to have some kind of partisan blinder on to draw your ridiculous conclusions. The reality behind the crumbing infrastructure is the anemic 0.25% annual per capita income growth rate that we have been having under socialism-lite, compared to the 2.5% annual growth rate (both adjusted for real inflation rate, the constant gold price) in the late 19th century and early 20th century, when much of the city infrastructures were originally built.<BR/><BR/>"Ah, time for the obscure quiz as if that will somehow make your suppositions of "what ifs" true."<BR/><BR/>There is nothing obscure about those historical facts that I cited. You can spend some time and educate yourself on the subjects. I did not at all intend the citations as a quiz, but instead presuming them to be common knowledge that an educated person should know at least something about before spouting off political systems and their effect on economies and liberty. On the other hand, don't blame the facts just because you are too ignorant to know them. Keep in mind, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat the same mistakes.<BR/><BR/>"Remember, we never followed the path you describe so your way has been untested since before the last century"<BR/><BR/>What kind of logic is that? That a slave can not yearn for freedom because he is born a slave? Then you have to convince yourself that you can not criticize W at all because "the path" had him, not the alternative, as the president. What kind of hare brained illogic is that? Consequences of policy alternatives can be estimated based on historical performance of similar policies. That's why you need to know your history, not just working on some empty touchy-feeliness completely devoid of any knowledge about the the dire consequences of every single historical attempt at trying out those same utopic ideas as societal institutions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-62244956416855916892008-06-13T22:02:00.000+01:002008-06-13T22:02:00.000+01:00We wouldn't have to coerce people to contribute if...We wouldn't have to coerce people to contribute if not for selfish conservatives. If the tax code were voluntary only suckers would pay and none of the republicans would kick in a penny. Of course they'd use all the services they could get but then skip out on the payment.<BR/><BR/>And we do determine the amount of cooperation and coercion by who we elect to make policy. The little foray into tax-cutting of the last 30 years have left us broke and crumbling. That's what the people get for voting in republicans who neglected our society. Now, they're rejecting that as evidenced by their turning out republicans in 2006, a move that will accelerate in 2008. No coercion, just voting.<BR/><BR/>Ah, time for the obscure quiz as if that will somehow make your suppositions of "what ifs" true. Remember, we never followed the path you describe so your way has been untested since before the last century. But if you're referring to an attempt to feed and amuse the masses in lieu of real change, that's fine with me if that's all you're capable of at the time. Conservatives can't even manage that because they LOVE to see people in misery. It makes them feel better about themselves until they get the short end of the stick. Then they bleat like lost sheep for help.<BR/><BR/>Better get busy on pumping from you well to shower and driving on your private roads to see your self-sufficient parents and let them see their grandkids who never got a penny from the public school. I know how you stand alone cons never use the services of the society you refuse to support until forced.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-3036310196096001942008-06-13T20:53:00.000+01:002008-06-13T20:53:00.000+01:00Bitterrenter,"You're not only a bad historian, you...Bitterrenter,<BR/><BR/>"You're not only a bad historian, you're a bad citizen."<BR/><BR/>Do you consider advocates and supporters of the "bread and circus" to be good citizens? or you simply no idea what the historical reference is?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-78946902613952836552008-06-13T20:41:00.000+01:002008-06-13T20:41:00.000+01:00"No civilization or society has survived without t..."No civilization or society has survived without the cooperation of many to build together."<BR/><BR/>People can and do cooperate with each other without being coerced by a third party. In fact, the very foundation of free market economics is built on the understanding that specialization and cooperation are what lead to prosperity. Free market exchange is much better at discovering and promoting specialization and cooperation than government fiat can be.<BR/><BR/>"Your warped perceptions of early settlers are not what ocurred in reality. "<BR/><BR/>Go read the primary sources yourself on what happened.<BR/><BR/>"Using your logic, all corporations would work better if everyone worked independently. That's not how it works, never has been. No management would tolerate it either."<BR/><BR/>We are finally going somewhere :-) Using my logic, the corporation and the individual employee should each have the right to find a better alternative partner for cooperation (according to his/her/its own judgement). Using your logic however, the management should have the right to demand sacrifices from employees without the free consent of the employees! So long as the management deems it in the long term interest of the company collective. That is bona fide Fascism. Like I mentioned before, socialism is fundamentall Feudalistic and Fascistic, because that's what coerced "cooperation" is. Coerced cooperation is not cooperation, it's serfdom!<BR/><BR/>"And again, you have no way of knowing how an every-man-for-himself society would work since we've never had one."<BR/><BR/>We actually do live in an every-man-for-himself society; that's always the case and always will be: everyone has his/her own self interest. The only difference between our respective proposals is the question whether some individuals should have the special previlege of of coercing other people into doing things for the lord/master/leader's benefit without fair market compensation. The answer to that question is yes in feudalism, fascism, and socialism . . . whereas free market capitalism wants that kind of coercion minimized.<BR/><BR/>"As we've approached it in the past misery raises it's ugly head and the people support socialist policies. That explains why republicans have once again lost control of the COngress and soon, the White House."<BR/><BR/>Neocons are getting the boot because they pursued socialist policies both overseas (Iraq war to suppress oil price) and domesticly (entitlements and police surveillence society) while in power, leading to massive government debt, inflation and declining standards of living, just like any socialist programs inevitably lead to. Neocons were "liberals" in their youths, and transformed themselves from left-wing collectivists into right-wing collectivists in the past two decades.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-81478502102298932932008-06-13T19:07:00.000+01:002008-06-13T19:07:00.000+01:00No civilization or society has survived without th...No civilization or society has survived without the cooperation of many to build together. Your warped perceptions of early settlers are not what ocurred in reality. <BR/><BR/>Using your logic, all corporations would work better if everyone worked independently. That's not how it works, never has been. No management would tolerate it either.<BR/><BR/>And again, you have no way of knowing how an every-man-for-himself society would work since we've never had one. As we've approached it in the past misery raises it's ugly head and the people support socialist policies. That explains why republicans have once again lost control of the COngress and soon, the White House.<BR/><BR/>Now go on, write a page telling me it was socialism the people are rejecting or perhaps that sun spots caused the failure of the conservative revolution.<BR/><BR/>You're not only a bad historian, you're a bad citizen.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-5922775451787600662008-06-13T18:14:00.000+01:002008-06-13T18:14:00.000+01:00"You can only theorize"Only if you know nothing ab..."You can only theorize"<BR/><BR/>Only if you know nothing about history. The history is replete with examples of socialism ruins the economy, and make live miserable for every one. In the American experience, the A/B test started as early as when the Mayflower unloaded its passengers. They tried socialist communal living in the first year. The result was near total catastrophy: half the people died of starvation in the first winter. The next spring, the settlers divided the land into family plots, each responsible for their own plot. What followed was a colony that endured.<BR/><BR/>0.25% annualized per capita income growth rate in the 70 years after Hoover-FDR vs. 2.5% annualized rate in the previous 70 years speak louder than all your socialist imaginations (not even theories). If that 2.5% annualized rate had been kept in place for the last 80 years, the per capital income in the US should be $230,000 instead of the current measly $38,000.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-86711982261200631672008-06-13T18:06:00.000+01:002008-06-13T18:06:00.000+01:00Bitterrenter,No, I'm not a figure skater; nor do I...Bitterrenter,<BR/><BR/>No, I'm not a figure skater; nor do I get paid for studying history. I just happen to know more about history, economics and human behavior than you have shown so far.<BR/><BR/>"The problem with your defense of savage capitalism is that we tried it for centuries before adopting a more humane system of contributory socialism."<BR/><BR/>A semblance of Free Capitalism only started to appear in the Netherlands and Britain in the 18th century. Capitalism was embraced by much of western Europe and North America only after Napoleonic War . . . then it gave way to nationalism (in the form of mercantilist imperialism) and socialism at the end of 19th century and early 20th century. The second half of 19th century saw the fastest worldwide economic growth ever witnessed in human history.<BR/><BR/>"Savagery failed most people."<BR/><BR/>What caused the shift to nationalism and socialism had nothing to do with "the savagery of capitalism," but everything to do with the savagery of socialists and nationalists trying to impose their will on other people through the use of violence. The former elites of Europe were not happy with the rise of the middle class due to the economic progress; they wanted their previlged social positions preserved and enhanced, and that's why the elite embraced socialism, which is really just the old feudalism with sugar coating. For example, Bismarck was the first one to try government pension programs for the elderly and poor . . . why? because then the people will become dependent on their territorial feudal lords again! Prussians were also the first ones to institute mandatory public education; why? because they wanted boys to be brainwashed early so they would later on be content with servitude to the state (as soldiers). <BR/><BR/>Socialism and its twin Nationalism were what made much of the savagery of early 20th century possible. For example, WWI would not have been possible in a free market capitalist economy; the governments would long have run out money before millions of people were sent to kill each other for years on end. The central banks were what made waging WWI and WWII possible; the central role of a central bank is to allow governments live beyond its means . . . by pillaging their territorial feudal serfs. Socialism == Feudalism. <BR/><BR/>"All the most civilized, first world societies are socialistic."<BR/><BR/>The poorest and most benighted countries are even more socialistic. What's even more remarkable: whenever a formerly civlized and prosperous society runs down the road of socialism, its living standards tanked shortly afterwards. For example: Argetina used to have higher standard of living than even Europe back in the 19th century and the first half of 20th century; then it tried socialist programs, and the rest of its history as we know is a third-world Argetina plagued by left-wing collectivists and right-wing collectivists. The US tried socialist government intervention under Hoover and FDR after 1929 stock market crash. So instead of a short "depression" like the previous one after the 1919-20 market crash, it turned into a prolonged "Great Depression." Things got so bad after 1937, FDR had to look for a foreign war to fight just to divert attentions from the high sustained domestic unemployment and declining standard of living at home. The US tried to expand socialism again under LBJ administration; the result was the end of Brentonwoods and the start of massive inflation. Nixon's "we are all Keynsians now" socialist interventions made the situation even worse for the following decade. <BR/><BR/>While Truman dismantled many of Hoover's and FDR's government boards and commissions that directly involved in the economy, and thereby brought the US out of the prolonged depression after WWII . . . the seeds of a longer term crisis, the long term pyramid schemes, were not removed. By the mid 1990's, the cumulative long term effect of 70 years of central banking and expanding central government (both were planks of the Communist Manifesto, by the way) had retarded real per capita income growth (as measured in the constant value of gold) to 0.25% annualized for the most recent 70 years, compared to the 2.5% annualized growth rate during the preceding 70 years (1860 to 1929). Young Americans no longer expected their future to be better than the lives of their parents; incidents like Ruby Ridge and Waco were manifest signs of population discontent. That's why Greenspan turned on the monetary spigot in a last ditch attempt to paper over the losses that Americans had suffered after some 70 years of having the fruits of their labor socialised. <BR/><BR/>Of course, then a pure monetary expansion driven market mania eventually has to come to the end. That's when things happened as they did in 2000 and 2001. The Neocons, the same social engineers from the LBJ and Nixon years, embarked on the biggest social engineering / imperial building project yet: instead of blaming the monetary and fiscal policies that led to the 1970's stagflation, they postulated that stagflation was due to OPEC ripping us off. So off to the wars American boys and girls went, in an attempt to keep oil prices down. What we get is a replay of the 70's: gold, oil and food prices all sky rocket, just like the 70's, regardless where the specific commodity is produced domesticly or imported. Only this time, it will be a little worse than the 70's . . . a little more like Argentina!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-22715977643378060602008-06-13T16:04:00.000+01:002008-06-13T16:04:00.000+01:00Reality, anyone can be anything here on the Web. O...Reality, anyone can be anything here on the Web. Of course you don't use any services, you and yours never tap into government money, you give lavishly to charity, etc etc etc. I've heard all of that from conservatives before. Oh, and you're a scholar of American History. Probably a world class figure skater too.<BR/><BR/>Just the other day I was having tea with Amelia Earhart and some friends when Bigfoot told us all a story about a conservative who never used any of the services his country offered, lived completely off the grid and was the most generous person on earth. I didn't buy it for a second but Santa and the Easter Bunny thought it sounded true.<BR/><BR/>The problem with your defense of savage capitalism is that we tried it for centuries before adopting a more humane system of contributory socialism. Savagery failed most people. All the most civilized, first world societies are socialistic. <BR/><BR/>You can theorize, pontificate and bombast your way through long-winded diatribe posts against Roosevelt, taxes, liberalism, et al, but the fact is that they all worked to create a first world, first rate culture that is now on the wane due to the abandonment of those principles by 30 years of conservative economic policies. <BR/><BR/>You can only theorize (incorrectly) about what ifs because what was, already happened due to liberal policies of the past.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-87144127766934314772008-06-13T14:11:00.000+01:002008-06-13T14:11:00.000+01:00Bitterrenter,"Arguing on the internet is an escape...Bitterrenter,<BR/><BR/>"Arguing on the internet is an escape and an opportunity to let brainstems know what pieces of shit they are."<BR/><BR/>Considering the complete ignorance and lack of insight that you have shown so far, you are free to describe yourself as "brainstem," although I'd be a little more charitable than that and chalk you up as a tragic statistic of the public brainwashing program. <BR/><BR/>If you have cogent argument to present, please do so; otherwise, hysterical personal attacks only shows "what pieces of shit" you are.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-18675105.post-75465086874590254152008-06-13T07:42:00.000+01:002008-06-13T07:42:00.000+01:00Anon,It's all a waste of time. Arguing on the inte...Anon,<BR/><BR/>It's all a waste of time. Arguing on the internet is an escape and an opportunity to let brainstems know what pieces of shit they are.<BR/><BR/>I'm aware I'm not changing anyone.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com