The Space Industry: An example of why governments fail and freedom prevails.

[Rassah]

There's a reason that most people who believe in libertarianism are in high school and have zero experience with the real world, and you and Atlas illustrate it quite well.

Btw, just fyi, I was a liberal democrat until I got to college. After getting my degree in business finance, and now going through most of my master's in business, I've become more of a social liberal and economic conservative. I guess moderate democrat/libertarian or something. The main reason was that I ended up learning how economics works, exactly, what effects government tax policies REALLY have (I don't mean "omg they're evil!", I mean totally unexpected things and tax avoidance issues), and what kind of crap people and businesses have to deal with globally from a bureaucratic/regulation aspect.

[1714546632]

1714546632

[1714546632]

1714546632

[1714546632]

1714546632

[1714546632]

1714546632

[1714546632]

1714546632

[ascent]

There's a reason that most people who believe in libertarianism are in high school and have zero experience with the real world, and you and Atlas illustrate it quite well.

Btw, just fyi, I was a liberal democrat until I got to college. After getting my degree in business finance, and now going through most of my master's in business, I've become more of a social liberal and economic conservative. I guess moderate democrat/libertarian or something. The main reason was that I ended up learning how economics works, exactly, what effects government tax policies REALLY have (I don't mean "omg they're evil!", I mean totally unexpected things and tax avoidance issues), and what kind of crap people and businesses have to deal with globally from a bureaucratic/regulation aspect.

I'm not against free markets. Not at all. Competition is necessary. But regulation is necessary. Especially with resource management and the environment. We don't have enough regulation with regard to resource exploitation and pollution, frankly. If you're proud of your education and ability to understand economics, then look into steady state growth and ecological economics. Keyword: "Herman Daly".

[myrkul]

I'm not against free markets. Not at all. Competition is necessary. But regulation is necessary. Especially with resource management and the environment. We don't have enough regulation with regard to resource exploitation and pollution, frankly. If you're proud of your education and ability to understand economics, then look into steady state growth and ecological economics. Keyword: "Herman Daly".

OK, so I've read this paper by him, and I have to say it actually looks pretty....

fucking horrible. I'd like to point out something:

Free trade would not be feasible for a SSE, since its producers
would necessarily count many costs to the environment and the future
that foreign firms located in growth economies are allowed to ignore.

So... Which is it? Not against free markets, or against free markets?

[ascent]

Free trade would not be feasible for a SSE, since its producers
would necessarily count many costs to the environment and the future
that foreign firms located in growth economies are allowed to ignore.

A link to said article would be helpful, so that I may see the quote within context, otherwise I have no comment. Provide a link. Thank you.

[myrkul]

Free trade would not be feasible for a SSE, since its producers
would necessarily count many costs to the environment and the future
that foreign firms located in growth economies are allowed to ignore.

A link to said article would be helpful, so that I may see the quote within context, otherwise I have no comment. Provide a link. Thank you.

I did. You can't read?

[ascent]

Free trade would not be feasible for a SSE, since its producers
would necessarily count many costs to the environment and the future
that foreign firms located in growth economies are allowed to ignore.

A link to said article would be helpful, so that I may see the quote within context, otherwise I have no comment. Provide a link. Thank you.

I did. You can't read?

No. But I see now the link. I missed it before.

[ascent]

OK, so I've read this paper by him, and I have to say it actually looks pretty.... fucking horrible.

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/Herman_Daly_thinkpiece.pdf

That is an excellent paper. Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen it before, but it really encapsulates his theories. I suggest you read it again, and then read up some more on the theory.

[myrkul]

OK, so I've read this paper by him, and I have to say it actually looks pretty.... fucking horrible.

http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/data/files/publications/Herman_Daly_thinkpiece.pdf

That is an excellent paper. Thanks for the link. I hadn't seen it before, but it really encapsulates his theories. I suggest you read it again, and then read up some more on the theory.

Oh, I see. I didn't read it enough the first time, obviously, because I still think his theories are bullshit?

[rainingbitcoins]

An untraded corporation is still a corporation. Offering stock can be done without incorporation, and incorporation can be done without offering stock. It's the limited liability that is the issue here,

And for the 5 millionth time, when you have a purposefully powerless government operating against the most powerful people in the world, you have about zero chance of enforcing that liability.

Here, you're ignoring the source of the funds that pay for those social services. In another thread, it was discussed in some detail how those who actually cared could completely pay for almost all the services with very little trouble. You care so much, however, that you want to make sure that everyone helps, even those you're 'helping'.

I support progressive taxation. Low-income people don't pay. So no, the people being helped would not be paying taxes. They do now in the form of sales tax, etc, but I think they should be exempt from even that if they're poor enough.  And like I said, we can't keep charities funded even with a social safety net, let alone without one. A cite of "some other thread somewhere on the Bitcoin forums" doesn't really allay those concerns. This is yet another instance where people in real life don't act like you hoped they would, but you still refuse to change your awesome plans for them, and instead vainly hope that they'll adapt to you, providing no condition for what will happen if they don't.

Just to interject, minimum wage, high unemployment, and low income issues are currently more of an issue of artificial and distance-based borders suddenly collapsing due to globalization, nothing more.

Except that the almost all of the minimum wage jobs are service industry stuff that's physically impossible to outsource. And all of those things have been repeatedly cropping up as serious issues for many, many years before globalization.

[ascent]

Oh, I see. I didn't read it enough the first time, obviously, because I still think his theories are bullshit?

Point out the bullshit.

[Rassah]

There's a reason that most people who believe in libertarianism are in high school and have zero experience with the real world, and you and Atlas illustrate it quite well.

Btw, just fyi, I was a liberal democrat until I got to college. After getting my degree in business finance, and now going through most of my master's in business, I've become more of a social liberal and economic conservative. I guess moderate democrat/libertarian or something. The main reason was that I ended up learning how economics works, exactly, what effects government tax policies REALLY have (I don't mean "omg they're evil!", I mean totally unexpected things and tax avoidance issues), and what kind of crap people and businesses have to deal with globally from a bureaucratic/regulation aspect.

I'm not against free markets. Not at all. Competition is necessary. But regulation is necessary. Especially with resource management and the environment. We don't have enough regulation with regard to resource exploitation and pollution, frankly. If you're proud of your education and ability to understand economics, then look into steady state growth and ecological economics. Keyword: "Herman Daly".

One idea I'm a fan of is, instead of leasing land to companies to drill and mine on, make them buy it, and make them pay property taxes like everyone else. That way, instead of them just abandoning the land back to the government, they'll have to sell it. And if the company wants to be able to resell the land after they're done with it, they'll either make sure to be really careful when mining, or clean it up when they're done. Otherwise they're stuck with worthless land and are forced to keep paying property taxes for it.

[rainingbitcoins]

One idea I'm a fan of is, instead of leasing land to companies to drill and mine on, make them buy it, and make them pay property taxes like everyone else. That way, instead of them just abandoning the land back to the government, they'll have to sell it. And if the company wants to be able to resell the land after they're done with it, they'll either make sure to be really careful when mining, or clean it up when they're done. Otherwise they're stuck with worthless land and are forced to keep paying property taxes for it.

Yeah I'm sure a few grand in property taxes are a huge concern for someone who just extracted billions in wealth from your land. If the money they can save by being sloppy is greater than the property taxes (it is), they'll make a mess every damn time. Because that's just good business sense!

[ascent]

One idea I'm a fan of is, instead of leasing land to companies to drill and mine on, make them buy it, and make them pay property taxes like everyone else. That way, instead of them just abandoning the land back to the government, they'll have to sell it. And if the company wants to be able to resell the land after they're done with it, they'll either make sure to be really careful when mining, or clean it up when they're done. Otherwise they're stuck with worthless land and are forced to keep paying property taxes for it.

I don't think that goes far enough. I don't think it guarantees the behavior that is necessary in our world of diminishing natural capital. Plus, it does not account for border effects, which are the result of sections of land owned by one entity destroying an ecosystem which is larger than the entity's total owned land due to disruption of water flow, migratory paths, pollution, etc.

Think of the result of stringent and equal regulations applied across the board (preferably getting worldwide cooperation if possible). By imposing artificial limits on corporate behavior, they are forced to up the research and development (competitively, I might add) to find a way to create more efficiency in their resource exploitation.

And while we're on the topic of efficiency, it's important to not confuse one form of efficiency with another. The libertarian model encourages corporations to discover ways to run efficiently financially, which often means seeking the cheapest way to exploit natural capital for near term gain. This is typically achieved by picking the lowest hanging fruit, lest your competitor pick those fruit first. Regulations can force corporations to discover a different kind of efficiency (competively), which is to provide society with efficient solutions with minimal impact to the world's natural capital.

[Rassah]

I think they should be exempt from even that if they're poor enough.

This is the main problem with this whole idea: how do we establish who is "poor enough?" Back in my country, it was fairly customary for children to live with their parents, even after they are married, and only get a place of their own much later. Usually that would be an apartment. Sometimes we had whole families living in the same house for generations. Here, everyone wants their own house, and if they lose a job, they're homeless. This is why I don't get the issue with foreclosures being portrayed as such a horrible thing. I would say, move back in with your parents, and use your family for support, or at least downgrade to an apartment, but it's being shown as this terrible thing that will leave families out on the street.
My point is, what do you use the basis for being poor? Someone who makes $10k a year or less? Someone who would be considered poor in India or Somalia?
On a mailing list I am on, some guy posted an off-topic e-mail asking if anyone had a spare computer to donate. When pressed for more info, he revealed he got an old video game for his birthday, and his computer was not powerful enough to play it. It was pointed out to him that all he needs is a $30 to $40 video card for what he needed. He explained that he lives on SSI in an assisted living apartment, and has the government paying for his apartment, and giving him food stamps and $110 a month as a social security check. Then he explained that of that check $97 goes to pay for his cable and internet. It was suggested that he either go without that for a month, or better, cut his cable and just keep the internet, downloading the sows he watches or watch them on Hulu. He was rather upset and angry that people wouldn't help him and give him anything, instead giving him useless suggestions, and was coming up with excuses for why he needs to keep paying for his tv. Now, he's someone who only makes $110 a month, but has his food and shelter provided for him. Compared to some of the poor people in other countries, he's doing pretty well. Considering he can sit around at home and watch TV and surf the web all day, he's doing REALLY damn well. It'll be at least a decade or more until I save enough to be able to do that too.
Anyway, sorry, went off on a rant. That guy is poor, but he's also feeling rather entitled. My parents, on the other hand, make six figures each, but have about $20,000 a month in bills, and support my sick grandparents on my mom's side, and my family back in my home country. Both of my parents are working extremely hard morning to night, have only one old busted car between the two of them, and my mom sometimes can't afford to buy new pantyhose. After all expenses, their remaining money every month is also maybe $100. Are they poor?

[Rassah]

One idea I'm a fan of is, instead of leasing land to companies to drill and mine on, make them buy it, and make them pay property taxes like everyone else. That way, instead of them just abandoning the land back to the government, they'll have to sell it. And if the company wants to be able to resell the land after they're done with it, they'll either make sure to be really careful when mining, or clean it up when they're done. Otherwise they're stuck with worthless land and are forced to keep paying property taxes for it.

I don't think that goes far enough. I don't think it guarantees the behavior that is necessary in our world of diminishing natural capital.

What natural capital are you talking about?

Plus, it does not account for border effects, which are the result of sections of land owned by one entity destroying an ecosystem which is larger than the entity's total owned landr due to disruption of water flow, migratory paths, pollution, etc.

The term for that is "negative externalities." Make sure to use that next time you ask someone else about it.

Think of the result of stringent and equal regulations applied across the board (preferably getting worldwide cooperation if possible). By imposing artificial limits on corporate behavior, they are forced to up the research and development (competitively, I might add) to find a way to create more efficiency in their resource exploitation.

That would be nice, but the ones who are screwing things up are also paying the lawmakers who set up the regulations. The problem isn't what regulations need to be established, it's who decides on the regulations, and how are they enforced and not corrupted.

And while we're on the topic of efficiency, it's important to not confuse one form of efficiency with another. The libertarian model encourages corporations to discover ways to run efficiently financially, which often means seeking the cheapest way to exploit natural capital for near term gain. This is typically achieved by picking the lowest hanging fruit, lest your competitor pick those fruit first. Regulations can force corporations to discover a different kind of efficiency (competively), which is to provide society with efficient solutions with minimal impact to the world's natural capital.

Agreed. But, same problem as above. Personally, I wish oil would be allowed to go up to where gas will be $5+ a gallon. At that price, other fuel and transportation systems will finally become competitive and will have an incentive to be developed.

[myrkul]

An untraded corporation is still a corporation. Offering stock can be done without incorporation, and incorporation can be done without offering stock. It's the limited liability that is the issue here,

And for the 5 millionth time, when you have a purposefully powerless government operating against the most powerful people in the world, you have about zero chance of enforcing that liability.

Funny how you consistently say that I am ignoring the human element while you do the same yourself. Liability can be enforced in more ways than the guns of government.

Here, you're ignoring the source of the funds that pay for those social services. In another thread, it was discussed in some detail how those who actually cared could completely pay for almost all the services with very little trouble. You care so much, however, that you want to make sure that everyone helps, even those you're 'helping'.

I support progressive taxation. Low-income people don't pay. So no, the people being helped would not be paying taxes. They do now in the form of sales tax, etc, but I think they should be exempt from even that if they're poor enough.  And like I said, we can't keep charities funded even with a social safety net, let alone without one. A cite of "some other thread somewhere on the Bitcoin forums" doesn't really allay those concerns. This is yet another instance where people in real life don't act like you hoped they would, but you still refuse to change your awesome plans for them, and instead vainly hope that they'll adapt to you, providing no condition for what will happen if they don't.

https://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=17853.0

[ascent]

What natural capital are you talking about?

Biodiversity, forests, rivers, water, fish, flora, fauna, oil, metals, large parcels of land in an unexploited state, large swaths of land which allow herd migration...

The term for that is "negative externalities." Make sure to use that next time you ask someone else about it.

Actually, no. I made the mistake of using the term 'border', when I meant 'edge'. The term is 'edge effects': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edge_effect

Think of the result of stringent and equal regulations applied across the board (preferably getting worldwide cooperation if possible). By imposing artificial limits on corporate behavior, they are forced to up the research and development (competitively, I might add) to find a way to create more efficiency in their resource exploitation.

That would be nice, but the ones who are screwing things up are also paying the lawmakers who set up the regulations. The problem isn't what regulations need to be established, it's who decides on the regulations, and how are they enforced and not corrupted.

I don't necessarily disagree, but that does not obviate the need for regulations, judiciously applied after analysis is made by parties which are not influenced by those who are being regulated.

[rainingbitcoins]

This is the main problem with this whole idea: how do we establish who is "poor enough?"

If you don't have enough food to eat, if you can't get to your job, if you can't afford healthcare (assuming a screwed-up country like ours with no UHC), if you can't heat your home in the winter, etc. There are very well-known metrics for determining poverty in First World countries. It's not exactly an obscure or unstudied subject.

Back in my country, it was fairly customary for children to live with their parents, even after they are married, and only get a place of their own much later. Usually that would be an apartment. Sometimes we had whole families living in the same house for generations. Here, everyone wants their own house, and if they lose a job, they're homeless. This is why I don't get the issue with foreclosures being portrayed as such a horrible thing. I would say, move back in with your parents, and use your family for support, or at least downgrade to an apartment, but it's being shown as this terrible thing that will leave families out on the street.

Well now, not everyone has a family to fall back on. And the whole American Dream mentality teaches people that they must be some kind of loser to not have a house or be living with their parents past their early 20s, so you have that social pressure pushing down on them, which makes the whole situation seem pretty tragic. You also have to remember that this is what you're seeing in the news media, and the media panders to the fears of middle-class whites. That's why you'll see a thousand stories about a middle-management type losing his house before you'll see a single story about poor people being evicted from their apartments.  

My parents, on the other hand, make six figures each, but have about $20,000 a month in bills, and support my sick grandparents on my mom's side, and my family back in my home country. Both of my parents are working extremely hard morning to night, have only one old busted car between the two of them, and my mom sometimes can't afford to buy new pantyhose. After all expenses, their remaining money every month is also maybe $100. Are they poor?

Yeah, stories like this. People who make $18,000 a year and get no health insurance and no welfare would LOVE to have your parents' problems. I also don't think your friend could be affording to send money to other countries or pay for sick grandparents on $100 a month in income, so the situations are hardly comparable. Honestly it sounds like one of those awful New York Times articles about the poor family who's only making $250k a year and now they can barely afford their kids' pricey private elementary school or (God forbid!) their live-in maid. Living beyond your means is living beyond your means no matter what your income bracket.

[myrkul]

Oh, I see. I didn't read it enough the first time, obviously, because I still think his theories are bullshit?

Point out the bullshit.

Well, see, it starts on page 1...

[ascent]

Oh, I see. I didn't read it enough the first time, obviously, because I still think his theories are bullshit?

Point out the bullshit.

Well, see, it starts on page 1...

Is that your way of hinting that you have nothing meaningful to back up your claim?