Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:What an opportunity! (Score 1) 359

The historical evidence shows that Austerity causes demand contraction and often demand spiral, it has never in global history solved a budget crisis.

That's like claiming emergency rooms are responsible for vehicular deaths just because so many people die there. No one goes through a crash bout of austerity because they're doing well just as no one goes to an emergency room unless they have substantial problems.

The Euro eliminated currency barriers to unequal trade relationships which substantially hurt the Greece economy.

In other words, Greece fucked around for a couple of decades rather than deal with the above problem. Now they're paying the consequences.

The time to implement austerity and similar measures would have been two decades ago. It's not like the "unequal trade relationship" showed up yesterday.

And austerity does work. The Scandinavian countries successfully practice austerity right now. When you control spending over generations rather than only when your creditors force you to, you can have a much better society.

Debts on a national level will only rise as long as there is demand for that debt and confidence in it, or banks out to make money by selling people shit and betting against it.

It's worth noting here that Greece lied about its financial health for a time (and may still be lying, not like I care). So some of that debt was picked up under false pretenses.

Comment Re:Renewable versus fossil - where is nuclear? (Score 1) 292

You believe that thick, expensive concrete walls will appear magically by themselves without regulations? Or that a business won't sell some plutonium to the highest bidder if not prevented by the higher cost of a penalty? Then you're delusional.

There's always liability. And given the current huge burden of regulation, I don't buy that it's making nuclear plants safer, especially when we have nuclear plants operating well past their design lifespan.

You need examples? Check out Fukushima and Chernobyl.

Neither which was a failure of regulation, let us note. Fukushima was overwhelmed by a natural disaster for which regulation was inadequate at the time, but would have in around five to ten years (IMHO). Chernobyl was run by the people who regulated it. They deliberately ignored their regulations and took it into a regime where it would fail.

Comment Re:Statists vs. Libertarians (Score 1) 144

Primarily by curbing the power and reach of government. We don't need a government that spies on us (most of the world). We don't need a government that runs the largest military in the world (the US), runs its own oil companies (Russia, China, and most of OPEC), pampers us by doing things for us that we could, if we really wanted to, do ourselves (social safety nets of most of the world), and runs the largest networks of corruption in human history (everyone either directly or by incentivizing the creation of black markets and smuggling).

And most of this crap doesn't help us create a counterweight to business, religious cults, or other possible rival power centers.

Comment Re:Statists vs. Libertarians (Score 1) 144

You have the same influence over the government as you do over the market. Actually, because of the *one person, one vote* thing, you have much more so

No. There are very substantial differences between the two. The most important is simply that markets can cater to small groups and interests and wants that change day to day. They have a responsive to wants that are simply not present in a government.

Further, this lack of immediate responsiveness in government is by design. There is no democratic government in the world that allows real time modification by its constituents/customers.

I think it's completely foolish to equate the infrequent and very coarse-grained opportunities for control changes of an election to the fluid and fine-grained changes of a modern market.

Comment Re:Statists vs. Libertarians (Score 1) 144

As an individual, you have just as much control over the government as you do the market.

I think I've already explained why that isn't so. You seem to have not gotten the point of the orange juice example. There's no analogue to the light weight activity of buying orange juice in a government.

And the government, as our representative, has every right to compete in the market and inform us where danger lies.

That would be termed an obligation not a right.

Otherwise, it's not really open, it's merely privateering, with everything simply going to the highest bidder, which is really what we have because presently that is who the government serves, and that is because the public can't be bothered...

So why are you wasting my time? I'm supposedly controlling this mess? That's news to me.

Meanwhile no biggie. There's enough demand to keep the orange juice infrastructure afloat and the price almost reasonable. But the real truth is that the price is arbitrarily set by some commodity brokers in London, Hong Kong or New York, under the watchful eye of the triads, yakuza and other wealthy "families". The whole "supply/demand" thing is a total myth.

Nice to know that. Here's the problem. Supply and demand is not a myth, but rather a basic observable thing of any market. It doesn't matter who sets the price when I can choose not to buy and the supplier can choose not to supply.

Comment Re:Separation of powers or the rule of law, anyone (Score 1) 242

Oh yes there is. You're demonstrating it right now. Capitalism has failure baked in BECAUSE it doesn't have murder baked in.

See, capitalist free market competition creates winners and losers (failures).

The obvious rebuttal is that the loser can win later. There's nothing forcing you to do job X forever on, especially, when you demonstrate that you aren't good enough at job X to make a career of it.

Capitalism assumes, just like how communism makes assumptions, that the people who fail during the down times would pick themselves up the capitalist way. They don't. At least some of them will become disillusioned with capitalism.

So what? Capitalism is not a system of inspiration, but rather a system for getting shit done. And how are these "disillusioned" people going to do better in any other system? They have behavioral or psychological problems. Those don't magically get better in other systems.

But capitalism doesn't have murder baked in. So instead of letting those people die off, capitalism would try to uplift them too.

Why is letting people "die off" supposedly better? You do realize that capitalism also licked the overpopulation problem too. Just employ women gainfully. There's no need to kill people off.

In other words, capitalism's baked in failure is that it provides the perfect breeding ground for communism. Marx himself was a rich boy, whose wealth came from capitalism. Didn't stop him and other rich boys from biting the hand that fed them.

No. It's status signalling, like buying a huge yacht.

Comment Re:Statists vs. Libertarians (Score 1) 144

And just like in the market, you can vote for the government you desire.

In a market, I get what I want when I "vote" and the decisions can be fluidly changed. If I want to drink orange juice in the morning, I don't have to assemble a coalition of like-minded orange juice drinkers. Nor do I run the risk of losing and having to drink Coke for the next four years because I couldn't persuade enough of my fellow citizens to drink orange juice instead.

In government, all we have to do is stop reelecting crooked politicians, you know, like maybe being a bit more involved during the primaries, and demanding open primaries that don't favor any particular faction, and learning how to tune out propaganda.

I already did that. Somehow the crooked politicians keep getting elected.

The huge difference here is that actual markets are quite refined. I control how much I choose to spend and how engaged I am with other members of the market. With a government, I don't have that degree of control and a lot of other people wouldn't like it if I did have the desired degree of control. That's the primary reason I favor throwing off most government functions to the private world. I get to have the control I want and you get to not care.

Comment Re:Statists vs. Libertarians (Score 1) 144

Outcomes. We try to optimize outcomes.

There isn't one obvious standard of optimization. Optimization inherently requires a choice about what is to be optimized. For example, a common failure mode is to optimize that which is more easily measurable. Governments do this all the time economically with GDP, a measure of economic activity. This results, among other problems, with the well-known problem of the Broken Window fallacy where economic activity is considered more important than the creation of value.

Comment Re:Statists vs. Libertarians (Score 1) 144

Care to name a few?

Prisoners' dilemma is the classic example. That covers a broad category of human interaction right there where one person can potentially screw over another for personal gain. Then there's a number of large projects where coordination of activity results in a better outcome than uncoordinated action.

Comment Re:Statists vs. Libertarians (Score 1) 144

The high prevalence of unintended consequences, delusional viewpoints, and "bang-bang" control.

For example, let's consider the current story. Prosecutors got to this point of casual abuses of laws and ethics because there are no consequences. People cared more about the appearance of "being tough on crime" and expediting the prosecution of crime than on results, the unintended consequence is that now there are a bunch of out of control prosecutors who can harass people and organizations just because they feel like it.

There are plenty of delusional viewpoints such as ignoring or rationalizing law enforcement abuses, rationalizing that it's ok to jail people because of drugs or unpopular things said on the internet, or assuming that the government which commits blatant abuses in one area of intervention won't commit similar abuses in an area that the person wants intervention in.

And a near universal delusion of government intervention is that it is possible for an external group to know enough about a problem to effectively intervene. Commonly, there are profound knowledge gaps that aren't acknowledged and which greatly impair actual intervention attempts.

Finally, the real world bang-bang control problem is balancing a rod, like a broom, by moving the bottom end back and forth, The official version allows movement in one dimension and the only choices are to move left or right at constant speed. For cases where the rod isn't too far out of balance or moving too fast, you can keep it suspended indefinitely even in the presence of small, continuing, random disturbances of the system. You are always moving left or right. This uses more energy than a gradual approach that uses smaller adjustments when conditions are near balance.

Government intervention is not gradual or nuanced. And it's not uncommon to see government set up systems with fundamental flaws and then propose increasingly complex and bizarre fixes as the system goes more and more out of balance.

A classic example is the military-industrial complexes of the developed world, particularly, the US. The fundamental problem is that the system is a vehicle for transferring wealth from the public to a well-connected private network. National defense and security is lower priority whether by intent or not.

This has resulted in the sorry spectacle of a system that can keep track of the quality of the screws, but not the quality of the final product. There are plenty of major US defense contractors who have produced crap, overpriced products for decades (with really nice screws), yet still get plenty of business from the US government. There's no credible means to correct the problem because there are a small number of suppliers and any punishment would either impair the US's near future defensive capabilities or be trivial enough to ignore.

In summary, there's plenty of evidence that the approach doesn't work very well, due to the ignorance of the people controlling the system, the crudity of the means of control, and often just due to having terrible goals that are wildly incompatible with the needs of society.

Comment Re:Statists vs. Libertarians (Score 1) 144

You're starting to see why I use a credit union. Yes, they charge nothing for routine transactions. My point here is that one can do a lot to protect oneself from nefarious actions of a business - most often simply by not doing business with them.

Shop around a little. It's not that hard to avoid bad players. But you have to try first.

Slashdot Top Deals

You can bring any calculator you like to the midterm, as long as it doesn't dim the lights when you turn it on. -- Hepler, Systems Design 182

Working...