http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1886268&cid=34363612 Marxist much?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1883934&cid=34345704 Cut to the chase
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1877382&cid=34296690 BS income taxes

Many people, including myself, were disappointed that the Koster campaign chose to not participate in the KCTS 9 debate last Thursday.* But the next day, the pair debated and TVW has the video online.

If most voters watch this debate it's hard to see how Larsen could be re-elected, for one simple reason: everything Larsen said was about increasing the size, scope, power, and influence of the federal government. For every problem, Larsen sees the federal government as the solution. Even when Larsen correctly identifies mistakes Bush and the Republicans made in the last decade, Larsen indicts himself and his fellow Democrats because they want to do the same things the Republicans did, except more and bigger. Koster wants to go in the other direction: forward to liberty and smaller government instead of the monster debt that the Democrats and Republicans gave us last decade.

* I personally disagree with the Koster campaign decision to not participate on Thursday. Their stated reason was that Herald reporter and columnist Jerry Cornfield was one of the panelists, and the Koster campaign deemed him unacceptable because he's on the left, and they didn't believe he'd be fair. My take is that Koster could have handled Cornfield just fine, and that there's far less-fair journalists out there that Koster will run into if he's elected, and that he should have done the debate ... especially since, as this debate shows, the more Koster can put himself out there, side-by-side to Larsen, the better he looks: and that's something no journalist can take away, no matter how unfair they are.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Well, unfortunately /. does not have an economics section, so I can't post anything there because it does not exist, but I can still have debate threads about what is happening in US economy now and how it will change America in the future.

(compiling some comments together)

Hopefully the end of that thread is shown here.

-----

If you don't understand that corn and gold aren't the only two things on the market, that is your problem.

  - I presented a much bigger list a few comments ago, if you can't read - that's not my problem. Of-course the things I provided in that list are a tiny subset of the list there is, because all commodities are going up in price, because US dollar is falling, which you probably do not understand even the concept of, but you maybe able to read a number, right?

US dollar index fell 18% since 2006. The only reason it's even as high as it is, is because the other currencies that constitute the index are also being printed in currency wars. Good thing Asia has waken up last week, it looks like Singapore decided it cannot win the currency war and the rest of Asia just may follow suit.

Of-course in this war 'winning' means you destroy your own people's purchasing power, nothing else. Those who 'win' this war, lose their quality of life.

There is a measure for the rate of change in overall price levels, and it is showing historically low rise. You can cherry-pick a few commodities whose prices are going up, but you're not fooling anyone.

  - except of-course that the smart money has left USD and is in other currencies, in Asian equities and in commodities.

So if you are so dumb not to understand the insane levels of inflation presented by the price increases, then you deserve to lose your purchasing power.

You think ALL metals going up is 'cherry picking', you think ALL agriculture going up is 'cherry picking'? You think cotton going up by 17.5% in JUST September of this year is cherry picking? Sugar? Rice? Wheat? Basically futures of all staple foods is cherry picking. Ha, interesting. I must check what happened to the cherries, they must have done better than the DOW and S&P in September just as well, though I do not have that number in front of me right now, I'll find out.

It's amusing how you make up ridiculous strawmen like this. I can tell that even you realize that you're utterly out of your league, and you're flailing around as fast as you can to try to distract yourself from your own incompetence.

  - I see, so I am dealing with a troll. Well I understand I am dealing with a troll, but this thread has gone long enough for me just to stop destroying every single one of your arguments in every comment I make.

You are the one saying deflation hurts the poor by taking away their purchasing power. You amuse me in your ignorance by making such statements, so I am waiting for more and more comes with every new comment of yours.

You are the one saying inflation provides people with more purchasing power, which is bullshit because nobody has wages rising at all except for the bankers and probably politicians taking bribes to help out the bankers.

So you have to decide, which is it? Is deflation hurting people or is it inflation?

I am clearly on the side that inflation hurts people more, all things considered inflation will destroy currency at this point.

You believe that deflation hurts people. So it must really hurt people if commodities, the basic foods, the basic elements go down in price, it must be truly painful to know, that sugar would go down in price rather than going 19.3% UP just in month of September of 2010. Which shows clear inflation because at the same time dollar lost a few percentage points and S&P gained only 8.8% and Dow gained only 7.7%. You do not see the inflation and move into the commodities and foreign markets, but what else is new? nothing.

You know as well as I do that falling wage and price levels are bad for people with debt, and good for people with stockpiles of cash. You know it because it's so simple and obvious that there's no way not to know it, especially after I've spoon-fed the explanation to you over and over.

  - but you are willfully ignoring the simple fact that inflation will not allow people to pay their debt out ever.

Of-course inflation will PREVENT people from actually being able to pay their debt out ever, because inflation forces prices up but wages are stagnating. So people have only one option: get into MORE debt. Your society at the end will have insurmountable amount of debt. Your mind is unable to comprehend the simple truth that those with debt will never get out of debt in inflation. For them to get out of debt would take an extraordinary effort, which they will not be able to achieve, since the gov't is ramping up the inflation levels now.

The idiot at the head of the Fed came out with a statement that he wants to see 'inflation' up to be at 2% level, from the level he 'sees now', which he insists is 1.5%. All of these numbers are cooked. BUT EVEN if he actually was telling the truth (which he is not) then who believes that Bernanke knows exactly what to do to finetune this imaginary levels of inflation by .5%?

So he knows exactly how many treasuries to buy back to achieve this specific levels? He'll overshoot by a landslide. Nixon started price controls when his CPI numbers were at 4% (and at that time they counted inflation differently as well), but at 4% he decided to implement price controls, which are of-course fighting the symptoms of inflation, not the cause of them. And price controls do not work.

Bernanke will create more massive inflation than exists now, which is going to be amazing. Corn up by 60% in 3 months? HA! He'll push it up by 600% in 3 months, that's what he is going to achieve, yet you are still going to sit here and yup about not having any inflation.

You'll be sitting one of these days, in a cold apartment with no heating and no electricity and no running water, eating cat food out of a can that you heated up on a piece of wood you found outside, and you'll be saying how great inflation is. You'd have all that money and nothing to buy with it. Keep an eye on that wheelbarrow that you'll be dragging your piles of money around in, because if you leave it unattended, somebody will dump the cash and steal the wheelbarrow.

--

Tell me this: why on earth would you talk about "rampant inflation" when you know perfectly well that "inflation" means something else in the minds of everyone who will read your comment? Are you trying to deceive them, or do you just not care whether they understand what you're saying?

  - I answered this ridiculous thing in every comment, you are just too stupid to understand it.

Whatever your definition of inflation in your head is, it does not change the fact that money is being printed, that USD index is going down, that commodities are going up. It does not matter that you do not believe in something that is clearly happening around you.

Nobody will ever pay out their debt in inflation, especially in hyper inflation, nobody sees their wages rising. Bernanke specifically stated he wants purchasing power of all Americans to fall faster, because in his mind that's how you make Americans more competitive. This obviously relies on Americans NOT HAVING WAGE INCREASES THAT CORRESPOND TO INFLATION.

So nobody will be paying out their debt. Eventually people will be borrowing money to buy food (and some do now, the food-stamp program is basically IT now, but the borrower/printer is the gov't instead of separate people). Eventually you will be eating that cat food, I hope you remember this conversation thread then.
--

Last night KCTS 9 had nice profiles on both John Koster (R) and Rick Larsen (D-inc.), the candidates for Washington's Second Congressional District (whom we collectively interviewed recently here on Sound Politics). The KCTS piece uncritically showed Larsen's dishonest ad falsely accusing Koster of wanting to privatize social security, and referred to an "anti-incumbent" wave that is generally understood to be anti-establishment, not anti-incumbent, but otherwise it was a pretty good piece.

The discussion afterward, however, was fairly awful. All of the pundits -- including former state GOP chair Chris Vance -- said the only thing Koster has going for him is the "wave" in favor of Republican candidates. Joni Balter said Koster is "rigid" and "inflexible," while Larsen has "been there" for his constituents (as if Koster hasn't been). Perhaps she missed the memo that most voters in the Second CD want government to "be there" for us by being a lot less "flexible" on government spending.

Next Thursday, October 21, at 7 p.m., KCTS 9 will host a debate between Larsen and Koster. Tune in!

Also check out this non-endorsement endorsement of Koster by the Seattle Times. They call Larsen out for his dishonesty, his lack of fiscal responsibility, and his desire to increase taxes. They praise Koster for his fiscal prudence, his experience, his responsible record, and says he would benefit Congress. But they say they don't endorse him because he agrees too much with his own constituents: he is anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, and is (as every scientist and responsible politician is required by the rules of logic to be) skeptical of anthropogenic global warming.*

The Seattle Times says they endorse Larsen, but at the same time, they demonstrate that Koster would better represent his constituents. Draw your own conclusions.

* If you're a liberal, you're supposed to be skeptical of religion, skeptical of politicians, skeptical of authority and media of every kind, but not skeptical of anthropogenic global warming. Even the IPCC leaves open the door that AGW may not be true; how could any lay person think there's no room for that? To decry skepticism in the face of uncertainty is to be anti-intellectual, and it is incumbent upon every policymaker and scientist to remain open-minded on all such issues.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Anyone who defines what a socialist IS and states that therefore someone is NOT a socialist doesn't understand the word "socialist" or the English language very well.

The fact is, "socialist" has many meanings. In both French and English, for around 150 years, "socialist" has had a definition -- which has been very commonly used, even to today -- of, simply, massive social control by government for the purpose of taking from some people to give to others. As Bastiat said, for example:

Now, legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole -- with their common aim of legal plunder -- constitute socialism.

Socialism does not just regard the ownership of the means of production. It's never only meant that, not in our lifetimes. Obama does favor controlling society through "an infinite number of ways" in order to take from some people to give to others. This is a perfectly reasonable, correct, and valid use of the word "socialism" ... and it's not a matter of "human dignity," but a matter of whether government should be the instrument of providing that "dignity." I contend that destroying liberty to give "dignity" to someone else is itself taking away the dignity of all.

Or, in other words of Bastiat:

Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."

Several times in tonight's debate, Senator Patty Murray said that keeping taxes at their current level would make it impossible to fund critical federal programs. But the Democratic Congress, with Murray's votes, has shown no restraint in spending caused by a lack of revenue, racking up deficits of trillions of dollars.

On what planet does anyone believe that the Murray, or the Democratic Congress, is restrained by a lack of revenue?

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1816458&cid=33858844
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1816458&cid=33858884
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1816458&cid=33851828

There's a new site called Phygg.com that is a cross between the arxiv physics feed and Digg.com in that you can read papers up for prepublication and then vote them up or down. I think this poses an interesting new step in peer review and academic journals in that it gives the public a chance to participate in reading and voting on papers. From there, the journals can separate the wheat from the chaff. While it's not exactly innovative (digg + arxiv = phygg), it'll be interesting to see if people take to it and how good the general public will be at reading lengthy physics papers. MIT's Tech Review has a short blog on the launching.

Am I the only one who noticed that in Robert Mak's piece on the liquor privatization initiatives on KING 5, a supporter of the status quo said that the status quo doesn't make economic sense?

John Guadnola, Executive Director of the Washington Beer and Wine Wholesalers Association -- which opposes both I-1100 and I-1105 -- said that if I-1100 passes, "[Safeway] won't have nearly the variety [as it has now] because economically, it just doesn't make sense for them."

But if it doesn't make economic sense for Safeway to have that variety, then why do we do it? If carrying a certain number of bottles in a local Safeway doesn't make economic sense, scaling up as we do now can't fix that problem. So Guadnola is basically admitting that -- in a time of severe recession, no less -- he and his group are backing a system that wastes money.

Of course, the truth is that wide variety will continue to exist. I've lived in several other states, all of which allowed retailers to buy with volume discounts and decide what they wanted to carry, and all of which had a wide variety of liquor widely available. We have one of the only states with this sort of a system, and all you have to do is look at the other states and see that almost every criticism of I-1100 is based on fantasy. The only true criticisms I've seen of I-1100 are that it would give us more access to the products we want to buy, which is, as best I can figure, a good thing.

(Oh, and I should also mention that the criticism that this takes money from schools is necessarily false. Any revenues lost by the schools -- if required to make "ample provision" for education -- must be made up by taking it from other programs, or increasing other taxes. Our Constitution requires it. For I-1100 to significantly hurt schools, our state government would have to violate the Constitution.)

Another truth is that the people most ardently defending the status quo, as well as the people behind I-1105, are no less influenced by their bottom lines than the backers of I-1100 ... and probably moreso. There are many people -- like me -- who don't consume liquor or are not in the liquor business, but value the freedom I-1100 provides.

But all of the people I've seen backing I-1105 or the status quo are in businesses that do, or would, profit from the government protection of their business interests, such as Guadnola's organization, whose members control about 95 percent of all beer and wine distribution in the state ... a virtual monopoly that is jeopardized by privatization. Of course, I have no problem with any of the companies represented by the WBWWA. They are probably all fine businesses doing fine work. I do have a problem with government being used to protect their interests, at the expense of the other interests of other companies and individuals.

My two cents? Vote Yes on I-1100, and No on I-1105 and other forms of government control.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

In order to avoid the new Candy Tax in Washington State, I am carefully selecting what candies to buy for Halloween. Candy is legally defined as not having any flour, so I am buying up Twix, Kit Kat, Twizzlers, and -- my favorite of all -- Nestle Crunch. Mmmmmm.

The funny thing is that I've found that flour products actually make me gain weight more than products more heavily based on sugar. I don't think Michelle Obama would approve of Christine Gregoire encouraging me to gain weight. And certainly, no one sane would approve of the government encouragement to punish the makers of certain candies over others just because it lists "flour" on the ingredients. But I must comply! Christine knows best!

Do your part by helping me and Christine punish the makers of candy without flour: make your Halloween a no-flour-free zone!

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

The two campaigns for Washington's Second Congressional District, for incumbent Rick Larsen (D) and challenger John Koster (R), have agreed to answer questions posted by you, the readers and voters. This is going to be a close race, and perhaps one of the most-watched in the nation.

So here's how this works: you guys ask the questions, posting them in this Sound Politics discussion. I pick good ones and submit them to the candidates. They send their answers back to me, and I post them. I don't censor, edit, or modify their answers in any way (though as "interviewer," I may ask for clarifications, giving them a chance to revise their answers).

It's no secret that I want John Koster to win this election. But I'll do my best to pick good questions, and since everyone can see all the questions being asked by the commenters, everyone can decide for themselves if I did a reasonable job.

I'll close the questioning at the end of this week. Everyone -- from libertarian to liberal -- is welcome to submit questions here, but not to engage in discussions about the questions or candidates, or to be abusive. Ask questions: don't answer them or fight about them.

Have at it.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

Republican challenger John Koster leads Democratic incumbent Rick Larsen 50-46 in a KING5/SurveyUSA poll of the Second Congressional District. They faced off in a debate that will air on Up Front with Robert Mak this weekend.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

There's a neat site for Google Chrome users that shows how artists will be able to liberate themselves from Flash and use HTML5 when the standard is finalized and browser independent (if ever that happens). If you're bored and have five minutes and have speakers/headphones, I hope your childhood address shows enough up on here to make it worth your while. My parent's farmhouse had nothing but my hometown had a couple images that brought me back.

Of course prior to this we would have to use flash to enjoy the Aracade Fire's sites.

Hope someone else enjoys this as much as I do.

There are some surprising twists in our interminable Washington election.

Republican John Koster has come from behind to take the lead in the Second Congressional District race by 160 votes, and is likely to end up beating incumbent Rick Larsen. The good news for Larsen is that the total Democrat vote is over 50 percent; the good news for Koster is that independents who didn't vote in the primary will likely swing his way in the general.

Of course, Koster won the primary in 2000, too: but Larsen ended up winning the general. But it was an open seat in 2000, and that the incumbent might finish second in the primary is really bad for Larsen.

Similarly, incumbent Democratic Senator Jean Berkey (38th LD) is coming in third in her primary, and is likely to be eliminated from the general election ballot. At 32.24% of the vote, she's falling behing Conservative candidate Rod Rieger at 32.63%, and fellow Democratic candidate Nick Harper at 35.13%.

According to Jerry Cornfield at The Herald, she'd be the only incumbent for the state legislature to fail to get to the general election this year. More incumbents, like Sound Politics troll Geoff Simpson, are likely to lose in the general, though.

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.

From the Democratic Party: "The only thing Boehner seems serious about is raising campaign cash. After the speech, he told reporters that he's prepared to help Republicans spend $50 million to win back Congress. ... Democrats have a different plan. We're asking supporters like you to make a contribution to the By the People Fund."

How dare Boehner say he's trying to raise money! We're different: we want to raise money!

Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.