Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:LOL LOL OMG.. HAHAHAHA (Score 1) 543

by roman_mir (#49614407) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Announces Bid For White House

The US economy is one step away from anarchy compared to either North Korea or East Germany

- ha, if by one step from 'anarchy' you mean the Federal Reserve bank, the IRS, FDA, EPA, FCC, FBI, FDIC, DHS, FHA, departments of agriculture, business, interior, education, health care, labour, etc. Sure, 1 step being 99% of what governments (federal and state and municipal) do.

Comment: Re:LOL LOL OMG.. HAHAHAHA (Score 1) 543

by roman_mir (#49612623) Attached to: Former HP CEO Carly Fiorina Announces Bid For White House

Actually very few really understand how it works today, which is why it will not be fixed, because the way that people think they understand it is wrong, they don't see the actual problem so the solution cannot be understood if people don't understand the problem in the first place.

Comment: Re:Why would anyone start there? (Score 1) 121

And of course, if a number of large employers all suddenly congregated in Austin, of course land prices would go up, salaries go up, etc.

That's definitely happening... Austin 10 years ago was cheap, now it is merely "not as expensive", especially if you don't want a long commute from the suburbs (Austin has horrible traffic, so I don't recommend that). Central areas of the city have prices in the $400-600k range. Fancy areas, like West Austin, are pushing $1m.

Comment: Re:He also wants to roll back civil rights too. (Score 1) 437

by roman_mir (#49593687) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

Because Rockefeller colluded with railroad companies and had secret arrangements to get bulk discount for himself and shafted his competitors.

- there is absolutely 0 wrong with providing a company with a promise to buy scheduled services on the clock without interruptions and to pay for the service whether or not you can use 100% of its capacity that day.

If I want to start a shipping business I can talk to an import/export broker and work out a schedule, where regardless of my circumstances I will ship 1 container every 2 days with him on a clock and because of that certainty of payment he will give me a much better price than he could anybody else.

As to Rockefeller's 'secret deal to prevent shipping for others' - baloney. The so called 'secret deal' was no such thing, it was a discount that Rockefeller was getting that nobody else could get because they would not ship a supply of that much oil on the clock, whether they have it or not that time and pay for a prearranged amount of delivery as promised.

Rockefeller was absolutely right and the reason that oil never went below 7 cents was exactly because government destroyed his company and did not allow him to find new ways to increase demand by lowering prices even further. Nobody was finding any better way of doing business in that time, otherwise they would have won against Rockefeller and that is all there is to it.

Microsoft had a temporary monopoly for a very good reason: they provided the computing platform that nobody else could provide at the price and just because you can't accept that doesn't change that fact. Microsoft and others also pushed hard enough in the market that competitors actually had to innovate to become competitive in that market, which is how free and open source software came to existence.

As to me being 'religious' about free market - I cannot stand hypocrisy of the modern society that will vilify the individual and promote the collective and use the force of the collective to oppress the individual. If I am 'religious' about anything that would be the belief that individual freedom tramps every so called 'societal good' that you can come up with that is based on lies, oppression, destruction of the individual, theft from the individual, slavery of the individual by the collective.

Comment: Re:He also wants to roll back civil rights too. (Score 1) 437

by roman_mir (#49591483) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

Yes, I am saying precisely that, because free market is market free from government oppression, which means government cannot give a monopoly to a company and as long as a monopoly status is not given and not protected by a government the so called 'monopoly' is a temporary state of affairs that clients assign to a company if the company does exactly what the clients want.

A monopoly in a free market is not a problem at all because it doesn't become a monopoly by using force and oppression of government, so it may be a temporary monopoly (temporary as long as the company provides the best product at the best price) but no company stays a monopoly for too long. As an example I consider the break up of Standard Oil in 1911 to be a complete and utter travesty and destruction of individual freedoms. That company was started with one goal, to make money the best way Rockefeller knew how: by building a company that over time reduced prices and improved quality of service, both of which that company did.

The prices for oil product (kerosene at the time) went down from 60 or so cents in 1860s to just around 7 cents a gallon by late 1890s. All of this improved standard of living for people buying the product, the government wanted to steal the proceeds and let inefficient friends to enter the market where in the free market they could not compete on those prices at all.

Yes, a monopoly in a free market shows that the company is doing everything right.

Comment: Re:He also wants to roll back civil rights too. (Score 1) 437

by roman_mir (#49587917) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

Oh yeah, no true Scotsman....

- wrong. 2 things are necessary for free markets to exist:

1. equal application of all laws to all individual regardless of their individual circumstances.

2. protection of ownership and operation of private property against the government intrusion, against the mob and the collective.

A feudal system does not treat all people the same under the law. Neither does any of of the current socialist / fascist systems. As an example the so called 'progressive' income tax increases tax rates on a smaller and smaller percentage of the population relative to their greater income. This is unequal application of the law, as it creates a gigantic divide between people who run businesses, own assets and the rest, who want to steal from those who run businesses and own assets.

The least onerous form of government is Democracy, which you disdain as mob rule.

- actually this is one of the worst forms of government, since it creates oppression that cannot be eliminated by taking down any one particular individual. A dictator can be shot, even a single party system (like what we had in the USSR) can be stopped, but a hydra that is 'democracy' cannot be simply shot or stopped because it pretends that it exists on the voluntary participation of the electorate, which is nonsense and it does not give power to any one particular governer, instead it provides power by proxy to the most connected individuals (companies) and it keeps a puppet in the spot light.

You can go ahead and shoot that puppet but not the puppeteer, and the puppeteer is intelligent enough to give you the impression that you are in control of the government.

Democracy is a horrendous system, where few in power (the puppeteers) use the mob to keep the power structure going by setting up the useful puppets that promise to keep the mob happy by stealing from the minority (employers, 1% or whatever) and handing the stolen goods to the majority (electorate).

Of-course the reality is that the mob gets crumbs, the money is stolen from everybody and the puppeteers have direct access to the actual reigns of power and to the fake money printing presses.

Comment: Re:He also wants to roll back civil rights too. (Score 1) 437

by roman_mir (#49586699) Attached to: Rand Paul Moves To Block New "Net Neutrality" Rules

Humanity has experienced such total free economy. It took 1000 years for Europe to break out of the feudal system where inherited property based on land concentrated power at the very top.

- wrong. Every time humanity actually did get to experience freedom (free economy means economy not centrally planned, economy built by people without government meddling with it) the people built the biggest economies, which later were crashed by the mob, which set up government to steal from the fruits of labour of people who built the economy.

As for 1000 years of feudalism - the feudalist system is a system of government that destroys freedom. Free market requires that people are free from regulations and from government, you can't be born into slavery and call that a free market.

Pure libertarianism is just marginally more practical than communism.

- wrong, freedom is the exact opposite of coercion, which is what communism entails, given that no free person would stay in a communist system on his or her own volition unless they were ruling it somehow.

Comment: Re:Capital always competes with labour (Score 1) 49

by roman_mir (#49582431) Attached to: Fetch Robotics Unveils Warehouse Robots

Those inflation numbers are hogwash, do not buy into the agenda that government is pushing, the interest rates are at 0% and have been at 0 for 6 years. Never before has this actually happened, never before has anybody tied their economy to 0% interest rates for such a long time. It is not going to be possible to get off the 0% interest rates without an economic collapse (which is inevitable and actually required to fix the issues that have accumulated in the economy since the creation of the Federal reserve and switch to the paper money and paper debt).

As to prices, they are going up, not down. There are no prices that are going down, actually even oil had a steady growth this year, what prices are going down? The only thing that is going down is real employment and productivity.

Also the fake negative inflation rate was used to adjust the GDP in a way that makes it look bigger, all of this is complete propaganda.

AFAIC deflation is not a problem, inflation is. Inflation is what has been killing modern paper money based economies, deflation is a bogeyman that never materialised. The only reason the so called mainstream 'economists' are scaring people with deflation is because there was deflation during the Great Depression, which government fought with gigantic amount of money printing (and farming output purchases with printed money that was ploughed straight into the ground to try and keep prices up rather than allowing people to eat cheaper at lower prices during a depression). Depression was not caused by deflation, deflation was a natural consequence of a post-inflationary collapse and it was proper and necessary but it was fought against with fake money printing the same way they did with QE1, 2, 3 and the next one and the one that will come after, the QE infinity.

There will be no rising interest rates coming out of the Fed, they can't do it, not without crashing the economy and Fed will not be crashing the economy on purpose any time soon (especially not before the coming elections).

Again, the inflation is not negative, it is very much positive and way higher than 2% that the Fed says it wants. 2% inflation rate to be a target.... that's a joke. 2% interest rate target was introduced decades ago in New Zealand I think as a CEILING target, once they hit it, they were supposed to raise interest rates to fight inflation.

Anyway, if you truly believe the government nonsense after decades of lying they have perpetrated upon the people, the false pretences for wars, the false economy, the false money, then I don't think I'll be getting through to you in this comment, but I had to write this as a response at least for myself.

Comment: Re:Capital always competes with labour (Score 1) 49

by roman_mir (#49582379) Attached to: Fetch Robotics Unveils Warehouse Robots

Ok, but look past the initial reaction, what are the next 20 years going to be like past the first shock of a crash? Let's say the dollar and the bond markets collapse, the stock and other asset markets go through the roof as people are fleeing the dollar, but housing market collapses anyway, because almost all of it is borrowed money and almost nobody has real savings to buy a house outright. So money generating ventures gain relative value while money pits (houses) lose value once fiat dies and is displaced by real market money (whatever that may be, but I set my bets in a particular way).

I don't think the next 20 years are going to be about rebuilding socialism, they are going to be rebuilding individual freedoms and thus opportunities, companies will spring out into existence, figuring out ways to help the people that ended up in these conditions, helping them to do something productive and get some payment doing some of those productive things.

I think the next 20 years after the crash are going to be about rebuilding the economy but the only way to do it would be by reducing the role of government to something entirely negligible.

There is no other way to survive when all of the assumptions and basic institutions fall on their face and disappear in the poof of actual logic (can't steal money forever, can't borrow forever, have to pay back at some point).

I think we are going to be moving away from collectivism of all forms (communism, socialism, fascism) and towards freedom again actually, maybe I am a bit premature on this but it is bound to happen in a global economy with at least some entrepreneurial people. The trick is to program the mistakes of the past into machines, who would remember the problems of the past and become certain rule-setters as to what direction any future attempt at setting up a government structure takes.

AFAIC governments should not exist at all, only individuals and their companies should exist and I think the future is going to move in that direction past the inevitable impending self-destruction of the current system.

Comment: Capital always competes with labour (Score 4, Informative) 49

by roman_mir (#49582223) Attached to: Fetch Robotics Unveils Warehouse Robots

I think I got modded down at least 2000 times in the last 16 years or so for saying this particular simple thing: capital competes with labour.

Labour and capital are in competition, there is always some price point, where it is cheaper to invest capital to reduce reliance on labour and the opposite is also true, should labour become cheap enough it can win against capital for some time at least.

What are the factors that lead towards labour being more expensive than capital? Well, in the so called 'developed' nations that would be government created inflation (paper fiat printing and interest rate manipulation), business regulations (which are taxes) and other income and wealth taxes.

The price of labour in the free market may or may not in some cases lead to investment of capital in order to displace the said labour but in a non-free market system that the so called 'developed' world is running the price of labour is artificially high, pushed by regulations and laws and taxes high enough for capital to win over and over and over and over.

Companies like Uber and many others will come up with ways to bring down the cost of labour by getting around regulations and laws (and hopefully taxes at some point) in order to make labour competitive again. For now we are not there yet.

Various economic indicators in the USA are showing a significant slow down in the economy, it's systemic but the TV will make you think this is all weather related, which is pure nonsense. Weather happens, so do other things, these things shouldn't cause the so called 'economists' miss their targets all the time by such huge margins. The USA (and some other) economy is dying the death of trillions of cuts administered by the government and various 'progressive' agenda but also by the mix of corporate/state agenda that prevents free market from working. Free market is then blamed, the idiots say: 'free market fails' or whatnot, when the reality is that it is their system of government that fails to protect individual liberties and freedoms required for the free market to exist.

There will be no easy fix for this failure to protect individual liberties, it will be a painful and very expensive crash, the question is what do you do after that crash?

Comment: Re:well then it's a bad contract (Score 1) 329

by roman_mir (#49571053) Attached to: ESPN Sues Verizon To Stop New Sports-Free TV Bundles

I completely disagree with every business regulation by any government, this is not a problem that government needs to be involved with at all.

Of-course in Canada Bell is a 'crown corporation', an oppressive concept that is incompatible with individual freedoms of people, creating pseudo-government agencies that are imposed upon individuals and that prevent and destroy competition (that's the only way monopolies are dangerous - when they are government created and protected monopolies), so where it comes to such monstrosities as far as I am concerned the only correct course of action is to disband them, liquidate the assets and let the market deal with the industry that the monstrosity was involved in.

Once you have government created, imposed, protected monopolies no amount of regulation will help to fix the underlying problem: they should not exist, the market cannot function with them around. But the same problem (only to a much greater extent) exists in every transaction, half of every transaction is money and government controls/prints money, which is the real issue for the economies around the world.

The real writing is on the wall of-course, that writing being that as long as people don't learn from history and don't stop governments from meddling with business, their economies will be inefficient and their living standards will suffer.