Some good stuff has been coming out of the libertarian subreddit.
Stossel crony capitalism
Sunday, January 31, 2010
Obama @ Republican Retreat
Obama spoke and answered questions at the Republican retreat recently. I don't have the time or patience for a thorough analysis, but here are some talking points:
- He is using the idea of "rise above this" and "work together" to mean "do it my way"
- "good ideas" seem to be, by definition, ideas that he likes
- He dodges a lot of questions, including, "What should we tell our constituents when we've presented many solutions to health care, but they hear from you that we are not presenting alternatives?"
- He panders to his audience, complimenting for example a person's family, then uses that to gain political points later on
- He denies that he is an ideologue, but then fails to recognize that the differences in health care strategies are largely idealogical. E.G. small gov vs big gov, gov intrusion vs choice
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Boondogglers Love a Train
In his SOTU address, Obama announced that there would be new railroad construction. Why railroads?
There is a piece of property in eastern Oregon that is near and dear to my heart. It has four dilapidated log shacks on it. The shacks are next to a stream that holds rainbow and brook trout. There are meadows that support cattle, deer, and elk. You can get lost in the vast forest. My distant relatives own it. I always dreamed of owning it one day. It's a mile by mile stretch of land.
How could one family, in fact one person for a while, own such a large piece of fertile land? Railroads. You see, when the first railroads conquered the west, the government was involved. Kinda like today. One of the things they did was grant large stretches of land to the railroads. And the railroads need large tracks of land to build on ... makes sense, right?
Funny thing is, there's not a railroad within a hundred miles of this property. My relative was an exec for the railroad. As a bonus they comped him this land. Get it?
Warren Buffet has been purchasing railroads for a while. Not because they have great P/E, but because of their great book value. In other words, they don't earn much for how much they cost, but they own a lot of capital for how much they cost - capital that used to be ours.
Let me quickly rant about some of the problems with trains, then I'll give the closer. Trains have limited destinations; unlike automobiles, planes, or boats, a train is limited to the few tracks that have been built for it. Following the last point, you have to have a secondary mode of transportation to get to one of the train's fixed destinations; meaning you've already invested in a car, bicycle, bus, etc. Unlike private vehicles (cars, bicycles, private watercraft) trains only work on schedules; you can't just hop into your train and go; this creates inefficiencies. Our highway system already connects destinations the trains are proposed for, creating a competition for public funds in the creation and maintenance of these redundant systems.
The closer. When the government is not involved in a venture, capitalists must decide whether they will at least break even on their investment. In other words, will people pay enough for the product/service I am creating so that I can recoup my money? And people (as a group) will only pay enough to offset the costs of the product/service if it gives them equal or greater value. If entrepreneurs thought there was going to be large demand for a railroad, the government wouldn't need to be involved. Investors would front the money knowing that people would gladly pay to ride the trains (or companies would pay to haul cargo) and that investors would recoup their outlay. In fact, the government wouldn't bother considering railroads if they were an efficient mode of transportation, because one or more would already be in the works or operating. Why aren't there already private railroads like the ones being proposed? Because it's a bad investment. People don't want them and won't use them enough to justify the outlay of capital. Investors know this.
Instead, railroads have and will be used to syphon wealth from tax payers into the hands of politicians, their contributors, and railroad executives. History repeats itself.
There is a piece of property in eastern Oregon that is near and dear to my heart. It has four dilapidated log shacks on it. The shacks are next to a stream that holds rainbow and brook trout. There are meadows that support cattle, deer, and elk. You can get lost in the vast forest. My distant relatives own it. I always dreamed of owning it one day. It's a mile by mile stretch of land.
How could one family, in fact one person for a while, own such a large piece of fertile land? Railroads. You see, when the first railroads conquered the west, the government was involved. Kinda like today. One of the things they did was grant large stretches of land to the railroads. And the railroads need large tracks of land to build on ... makes sense, right?
Funny thing is, there's not a railroad within a hundred miles of this property. My relative was an exec for the railroad. As a bonus they comped him this land. Get it?
Warren Buffet has been purchasing railroads for a while. Not because they have great P/E, but because of their great book value. In other words, they don't earn much for how much they cost, but they own a lot of capital for how much they cost - capital that used to be ours.
Let me quickly rant about some of the problems with trains, then I'll give the closer. Trains have limited destinations; unlike automobiles, planes, or boats, a train is limited to the few tracks that have been built for it. Following the last point, you have to have a secondary mode of transportation to get to one of the train's fixed destinations; meaning you've already invested in a car, bicycle, bus, etc. Unlike private vehicles (cars, bicycles, private watercraft) trains only work on schedules; you can't just hop into your train and go; this creates inefficiencies. Our highway system already connects destinations the trains are proposed for, creating a competition for public funds in the creation and maintenance of these redundant systems.
The closer. When the government is not involved in a venture, capitalists must decide whether they will at least break even on their investment. In other words, will people pay enough for the product/service I am creating so that I can recoup my money? And people (as a group) will only pay enough to offset the costs of the product/service if it gives them equal or greater value. If entrepreneurs thought there was going to be large demand for a railroad, the government wouldn't need to be involved. Investors would front the money knowing that people would gladly pay to ride the trains (or companies would pay to haul cargo) and that investors would recoup their outlay. In fact, the government wouldn't bother considering railroads if they were an efficient mode of transportation, because one or more would already be in the works or operating. Why aren't there already private railroads like the ones being proposed? Because it's a bad investment. People don't want them and won't use them enough to justify the outlay of capital. Investors know this.
Instead, railroads have and will be used to syphon wealth from tax payers into the hands of politicians, their contributors, and railroad executives. History repeats itself.
Poll: Would You Vote for a Ron Paul Candidate?
If you would vote for Ron Paul if he was running in your district, you might want to check this poll out.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
nme16 uses censorship to silence capitalists
I recently made two comments to “The Prejudice of Race alone…”. However, my second comment has been removed, so I will paraphrase it here.
I believe that the author, and many anti-meritocrats, are jealous of amazing individuals. Instead of appreciating the light successful capitalists bring to the world, attackers perceive others' success as lessening their own. To syphon off the luminescence of the great they attack the (economic) systems which allow for their success; in this case by associating capitalism with racism.
I am not writing this because I am immune to jealousy nor because I am particularly successful. I am writing it because I have some understanding of jealousy, having been the victim of the emotion on both sides of success; because I believe that capitalism is the best economic system in the long term for all; and that jealousy will not end under any economic system.
To make sure I capture the first comment before it is also removed, I have copied it here.
I believe that the author, and many anti-meritocrats, are jealous of amazing individuals. Instead of appreciating the light successful capitalists bring to the world, attackers perceive others' success as lessening their own. To syphon off the luminescence of the great they attack the (economic) systems which allow for their success; in this case by associating capitalism with racism.
I am not writing this because I am immune to jealousy nor because I am particularly successful. I am writing it because I have some understanding of jealousy, having been the victim of the emotion on both sides of success; because I believe that capitalism is the best economic system in the long term for all; and that jealousy will not end under any economic system.
To make sure I capture the first comment before it is also removed, I have copied it here.
You are participating in the Orwellian redefinition of capitalism.
Capitalism is an economic and social system in which capital, the non-labor factors of production (also known as the means of production), is privately owned; labor, goods and capital are traded in markets; and profits distributed to owners or invested in technologies and industries.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Capitalism means you can own stuff. A capitalist is a person who believes that capitalism is the most appropriate economic system. This is in contrast to the many collectivist systems where your property may be taken at the whim of the mob.
It has allowed folks like Michael Jordan, Bill Cosby (who you disparage), George Washington Carver, and many other hard working, talented, people to prosper thanks to capitalism’s intrinsic meritocracy.
Friday, January 15, 2010
An Open Question: How Much of Obama's Personal Wealth Is Going to Haiti?
I wasn't able to find this from my quick google search, so I'm hoping someone can help me with it. We know that Obama contributed $100 million (and I believe additional non-monetary aide) to Haiti. This is tax payer money (and dollar holder wealth via money creation). So my tax dollars (and dollar savings) have gone to Haiti - whether I like it or not.
The president makes a lot more than me (I think he's at $400k). His accumulated wealth is also greater than mine by an order of magnitude. So I'm wondering how much of his own money he has pledged to Haiti. Is it greater than the money he has pledged on my behalf? Is it greater, percentage wise, based on our annual salaries? Based on net worth?
Update: Gisele Bundchen donated $1.5 million, Sandra Bullock has given $1 million, Redditors have given over $100K, Obama has robin hooded my money; how much of his own fortune has he donated?
Update: The president's salary is not tax free.
Update: The Obama's have donated $15k. I like to think I had something to do with that ... you never know.
The president makes a lot more than me (I think he's at $400k). His accumulated wealth is also greater than mine by an order of magnitude. So I'm wondering how much of his own money he has pledged to Haiti. Is it greater than the money he has pledged on my behalf? Is it greater, percentage wise, based on our annual salaries? Based on net worth?
Update: Gisele Bundchen donated $1.5 million, Sandra Bullock has given $1 million, Redditors have given over $100K, Obama has robin hooded my money; how much of his own fortune has he donated?
Update: The president's salary is not tax free.
Update: The Obama's have donated $15k. I like to think I had something to do with that ... you never know.
Saturday, January 9, 2010
Erik Naggum Email
Erik Naggum is eulogised by his peer as a thoughtful Randite.
Excellent article, I recommend you read it in full. I often criticize texts like these, though, not because I disagree with them greatly, but rather because I agree with them so much that I can efficiently present my thoughts as small differences from their abundance.
Appropriately, I want to compliment his inference that collectivism may exists to hedge risk and redistribute the cost of reproduction. I also agree with his analysis of in vivo freedom.
However, I take issue with his hypothetical society where, to paraphrase, viable reproductive individuals are identified and allowed to procreate while those who cherish freedom and production are allowed their liberties - but are, by their own acts, precluded from mating.
I find this absurd and wrong-headed. It is another version of collectivist central planning - which I admit I am also addicted to. Imo, it is in fact the ideology driving the problems he describes in the capitalist/socialist hybrid implemented in the US.
The problem is the lack of faith in liberty and capitalism. I assert that there are individuals who will not reproduce unless they are free, though this may lie on a continuum (with less freedom they will be less likely to reproduce). The more they perceive that they are slaves, that big brother is watching them, that they are the subjects of the nanny state; the more likely they will put off creating a family. As they perceive that their productive capacity is being stolen to nourish their enemy, they rebel. These individuals, through their desire to be independent and free, will not reproduce until they have savings which cannot be stolen - by collectivists or comparatively innocent common thieves. By artificially selecting individuals to mate, you provide no disincentive for genes, behaviour, or values which are not self sustaining - and the system will eventually collapse.
Therefore, any society that does not pursue (and obtain) freedom and capitalism, will, to various degrees, be a society that nurtures evil (in the form of leeches, thieves, and incompetents).
Erik mentions the problem of the cost born by the productive to reduce the burden of the unproductive - with a nod toward the cost/benefit of tolerance. This is the same problem between virus (leech) and host. Both the host and virus want to survive. A virus that kills its host quickly will not last. A virus that causes many problems for its host will (eventually, through evolution) force its host population to develop immunity. Benign viruses rarely achieve attention by the host, which naturally devotes resources to more valuable pursuits. However, there are viruses like HIV whose presence may not be obvious early on, but eventually end the host. This becomes a complex (but accurate) analogy, and I won't pursue every likeness here.
Collectivism in its various forms is like HIV. Listen to those who survived it by fleeing soviet Russia and communist China. They are our immune system. Ayn Rand was one. There are many, many more. They fled these systems because those systems were killing them. Eventually these systems failed. We are realizing the first symptoms of this disease - we need to protect ourselves and loved ones from becoming infected.
Final thoughts: kidneys that call the liver useless and seek to eliminate it will perish. Fat cells are a liability until famine hits.
Excellent article, I recommend you read it in full. I often criticize texts like these, though, not because I disagree with them greatly, but rather because I agree with them so much that I can efficiently present my thoughts as small differences from their abundance.
Appropriately, I want to compliment his inference that collectivism may exists to hedge risk and redistribute the cost of reproduction. I also agree with his analysis of in vivo freedom.
However, I take issue with his hypothetical society where, to paraphrase, viable reproductive individuals are identified and allowed to procreate while those who cherish freedom and production are allowed their liberties - but are, by their own acts, precluded from mating.
I find this absurd and wrong-headed. It is another version of collectivist central planning - which I admit I am also addicted to. Imo, it is in fact the ideology driving the problems he describes in the capitalist/socialist hybrid implemented in the US.
The problem is the lack of faith in liberty and capitalism. I assert that there are individuals who will not reproduce unless they are free, though this may lie on a continuum (with less freedom they will be less likely to reproduce). The more they perceive that they are slaves, that big brother is watching them, that they are the subjects of the nanny state; the more likely they will put off creating a family. As they perceive that their productive capacity is being stolen to nourish their enemy, they rebel. These individuals, through their desire to be independent and free, will not reproduce until they have savings which cannot be stolen - by collectivists or comparatively innocent common thieves. By artificially selecting individuals to mate, you provide no disincentive for genes, behaviour, or values which are not self sustaining - and the system will eventually collapse.
Therefore, any society that does not pursue (and obtain) freedom and capitalism, will, to various degrees, be a society that nurtures evil (in the form of leeches, thieves, and incompetents).
Erik mentions the problem of the cost born by the productive to reduce the burden of the unproductive - with a nod toward the cost/benefit of tolerance. This is the same problem between virus (leech) and host. Both the host and virus want to survive. A virus that kills its host quickly will not last. A virus that causes many problems for its host will (eventually, through evolution) force its host population to develop immunity. Benign viruses rarely achieve attention by the host, which naturally devotes resources to more valuable pursuits. However, there are viruses like HIV whose presence may not be obvious early on, but eventually end the host. This becomes a complex (but accurate) analogy, and I won't pursue every likeness here.
Collectivism in its various forms is like HIV. Listen to those who survived it by fleeing soviet Russia and communist China. They are our immune system. Ayn Rand was one. There are many, many more. They fled these systems because those systems were killing them. Eventually these systems failed. We are realizing the first symptoms of this disease - we need to protect ourselves and loved ones from becoming infected.
Final thoughts: kidneys that call the liver useless and seek to eliminate it will perish. Fat cells are a liability until famine hits.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)