Is Capitalism or is Socialism increasing?

Andrew wrote:Shelby believes that Satan is actively engaged in designing and delivering the destiny of these elites.

Shelby wrote:No I believe that entropy is trending to maximum.

And I have said buy gold and silver and do not attempt to short these markets, and have given the reasons why.

TPTB will attempt jack liquidity up and down and try to shake the trees to see how many gold and silver owners fall away.

Those who want to survive and prosper with their capital will buy physical and stop the nonsense in this gambling pit. And get on to doing something productive in their life to generate income other than losing all their capital in real terms (relative to price of gold) by gambling.

But if you would rather get back to the gambling, then please do. I will enjoy taking your capital, by simply doing nothing but holding physical gold.

My understanding of entropy enlightens to me that I must expect people to do many different things, and I must respect that their role is not right or wrong, it is just is.

Go forth and thanks for reading my views over the past few weeks.

Shelby wrote:When I wrote "no", I mean that for you to characterize the foundation of my belief to based on Satan, is false. I am founded in math.

Since I see that mathematically the so called "NWO" must fail (if it is ever even attained), and since I can reasonably assume that the centralized control over people is evil (because people like their individualized control and freedom), then I can say that the destiny of those elite who want to own everything is evil and will fail.

But that understanding is not fundamental to what forms my belief system. Which is again, mathematical and specifically the exponential function and entropy that are the fundamental law of nature.

Next time, if you are going to try to summarize someone's belief system, try to read more carefully and be more objective, rather than interject your own belief system. Which is obvious that you detest "religious beliefs", thus you try to mis-frame my beliefs as such.

NRA-ILA GRASSROOTS ALERT
Vol. 17, No. 21 05/28/10
FBI Data Again Shows More Guns = Less Crime

Anyone needing proof that fanaticism for gun control hasn't waned on Capitol
Hill, that anti-gunners are -- as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) put it
last year -- only waiting to "pick the time," should watch the video of
Mexican president Felipe Calderon's speech to Congress last week, versions
of which have been posted on youtube.com
< http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.6527.8.4609740 > . When Calderon
asked that the federal "assault weapon" ban be re-imposed, a very large
number of U.S. Representatives and Senators present gave him a standing
ovation.

However, on Monday the FBI released crime statistics
< http://www.ilaalerts.org/UM/T.asp?A1.2.6527.9.4609740 > that should cause
the applauding anti-gunners to sit on their hands. The statistics indicate
that between 2008 and 2009, as gun sales soared, the number of murders in
our country decreased 7.2 percent. That amounts to about an 8.2 percent
decrease in the per capita murder rate, after the increase in our nation's
legal and illegal population is taken into account. And it translates into
about a 10.5 percent decrease in the murder rate between 2004, when the ban
expired, and the end of 2009. And finally, it means that in 2009 our
nation's murder rate fell to a 45-year low.

Shelby wrote:re: Confused thinking by vox

Your solution to a failure being caused by socialism (due to fractional reserve debt is socialism, theft via inflation, and leads to a larger fascist govt), is to advocate more socialism, i.e. you want a centrally planned wealth redistribution. You are so confused about economics, and you are an example of why our system is socialist. You think you are capitalist, but you don't realize you are a socialist.

Read my prior post and think. Working for free is less costly and more educational than going to school (after a certain level of proficiency is obtained in school). Plus, you are being paid in experience, interaction with those who generate wealth, and networking. Do you realize how much it costs to provide the overhead for a company? You get that for free, by working for free. There are 7 billion people in the world, it is going to take a lot of production to employ them all. 6 billion people are going to be fighting for 1 billion jobs, until we all get productive and stop whining like a bunch of spoiled 5 year olds on the floor at Toys-R-US. Life is about production. You might even be able to sleep at work and order pizza on the company tab. Do you have any idea who you are competing with? I live in Asia, and I programmed CoolPage(.com, a million user product BEFORE friendster, mypsace, and facebook) from a Nipa Hut eating rice and vegetables only in a squatter community where I had dysentery and fever every week from all the unsanity conditions. Do you understand that my welder works very hard for $10 per day and lives in squalor and that is a very high salary here (3 - 5 times the normal salary for unskilled high school graduate).

Wake up westerners, you are getting ready to be hit by an economic tidal wave!

Shelby wrote:A fact is that societies that steal from each other, end up in great misery and poverty eventually.

I have defined 'socialism' and 'capital':

https://goldwetrust.forumotion.com/economics-f4/is-capitalism-or-is-socialism-increasing-t18.htm#3091

(also read the post higher on that page about the 10 manifestos of Communism)

"Socialism is the redistribution of capital from individual decisions to central managers"

The problem is that socialists do not understand the law of entropy (1st law of thermodynamics) that small things grow faster, i.e. a poor person can double his net worth in a day, buying a cold drink and selling it for double-price at a stoplight on a hot day. Whereas, central decision making and laws, destroy capital (they destroy the opportunity for small decisions that grow faster). Thus sure way to know that socialism is increasing, is when the governance is increasing as a percentage of the economy:

https://goldwetrust.forumotion.com/economics-f4/is-capitalism-or-is-socialism-increasing-t18-45.htm#3154

vox, your proposals all involve increased central decision making, which is socialism as I have correctly defined it (check dictionary.com also). You propose to steal from me, so do not expect me to be nice to you, you are a thief. Whereas, capitalism is equivalent to anarchy, where capital is free to maximize itself. Socialists like to use bogus environmental fear to scare people into anarchy is not superior to socialism:

https://goldwetrust.forumotion.com/knowledge-f9/book-ultimate-truth-chapter-1-science-is-never-certain-t148.htm#3159
(see Global Warming charts near bottom of linked post)

We see that when govt is in control, there are horrible disasters:

https://goldwetrust.forumotion.com/biblical-f3/tribulations-t128-15.htm#3262

Socialism is a way (ganging up in central governance and fiat inflation) for a few people to steal, plunder, and manipulate the rest of us. The Bible warned us about this 2000 years ago, but we are STILL too stupid to listen:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Samuel%208&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs%201:11-19&version=NIV
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020:15&version=NIV (8th commandment)

vox, there is no emotion, socialism is mathematically guaranteed to result in poverty, and thus eventually in dictatorship and/or fascism. Study history.

Countries that have small population relative to their large natural resource contribution to the economy (e.g. Sweden, Norway, Canada, Australia), are able to fund their socialism for some time. But eventually this will catch up with these countries as it has in USA, as socialism (as I have defined it) will eventually allocate more than 100% of the resources and even destroy the production of natural resources.

Yes vox, the wealth becomes highly distributed to those few who can buy the central decision makers in socialism. They get their hands on the creation of fiat money, then they buy the politicians. Rothschild told us this, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws".

It seems you somehow assume that centralizd law making can somehow be made orthogonal to centralization of control and power. You propose more of what caused the wealth to inequitably distributed.

vox, I wrote "proficiency", I did not write "read and write". That means once you have obtained the necessary building blocks for your desired career, then putting that knowledge to work for a while, actually generates more knowledge than adding more degrees and education. The author of this article was writing also about people deciding to stay in college for a 2nd or higher degree and taking on more debt in the process. I found that college classes were too slow. I would not attend class, and learn all the material from the book the night before the exam, and then usually got in the mid to high 90s in score (out of 100). I spent the rest of the time in the library learning what one would learn during their masters thesis, and also actually working and even creating my own software projects. Each person has to decide their own personal optimal mix of formal education and applied education. That makes a free market. The author's point is that taking on more debt beyond a point of diminishing return in incremental additional education, is more costly and less advantageous than applied education which can get one closer to earning an income. And I have added that apprenticeship actually earns an income, because you are getting many overhead items for free (things that I had to pay for when I did my own 'for profit' projects).

Yes I know that minimum wage is a way to steal from the poor. Due Coase's Theorem, the free market (economics) always routes around subsidies. Business will simply leave and go to where the labor is priced freely (the most competitive). If somehow a world govt is able to dictate that wages should be higher every where, then capital will be destroyed (see my definitions and math above), and thus more people will not have jobs.

You simply don't understand the basic laws of nature. One can not mandate the free market without destroying opportunity cost and thus destroying capital. As I said, you don't understand economics at all. But most economists don't understand either. They have been taught a bunch of nonsense by the bankster controlled educational and mass media system.

I proposed they walk away from their student loan and never pay it. Declare bankruptcy. Then go work for free for 1/10 of the years they would have been working to pay their debt. In that time, get a free place to sleep and eat, and build a huge reservoir of experience and connections in the industry. And then emerge from bankruptcy with a super high paying position and become extremely wealthy. Instead you propose to have govt mandate "solutions" that destroy capital and you propose to have students go further into debt and debt slavery.

You are the banal slave driver. I am the light of freedom and prosperity.

Bring on the debates!

P.S. The great thing about this working for free sleeping floor and food idea, is that it completely wipes out the govt's ability to regulate and destroy capital! And I slept on the floor and ate pizza in the office during most of my best software programming performances. It was actually fun and exciting to be so engaged in a project.

Also realize that as an entrepreneur, I had to put up my months of unpaid effort before a product was released that I could sell. Working for free (sleeping floor and food) is a similar investment in one's future earning capability, as one owns all the knowledge gained. Interestingly as automation increases, labor becomes more knowledge based, which means the employee keeps most of his work in his brain and owns it!

Gary North wrote:...The reason why the Federal government has so much money and power to implement these plans is because the general population a century ago surrendered such power to the Federal government, and did it on principle. The reason why so many socialist plans get funded by the Federal government is because the public really does like socialism. The public likes the idea of being able to take money from one group and transfer it to another group. The voters think that they will be members of the group that receives the money, not members of the group that has it stolen from them. They are fools, he said, but only in believing that they will not ultimately pay the price. They are not fools in desiring to get the money, given the fact that they believe in the legitimacy of coercive wealth distribution by state power. If you believe in the coercive power of the state, you're a fool if you don't attempt to get in control of it...

...The problem is not the conspiracies; the problem is the corruption in the hearts of the people. The fact that the voters would allow and even promote the creation of the modern welfare state is indicative of the fact that larceny is in their hearts. It does no good to replace one conspiracy with another conspiracy if you leave the system intact that enables the conspiracies to gain power.

This goes back to the famous chapter 10 in F. A. Hayek's book, The Road to Serfdom. The chapter is titled, "Why the Worst Get on Top." Hayek argued that the modern socialist state, meaning the modern welfare state, encourages the worst people to get on top, because the worst people are the most successful in seeking and maintaining power.

Because central economic planning centralizes power, it grants to the state the right to confiscate the wealth of the public. We should not expect kindly people to be successful in the pursuit of power within such a system. We will find, and what we have found, is that the most ruthless people seek out the levers of power, precisely because the levers of power enable them to achieve their goal: control over other people...

Shelby wrote:Outsourcing is accelerating

Recent Celente interview talks about this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMK4GSjTqII

I know many people in Cebu who have recently gone from abject poverty to being extremely high paid in call centers at $400 per month. This is about 3 - 4 times higher than the normal salary would receive here at their education level.

Please read my prior comments.

Here is the link to the company in Cebu that is hiring so many people lately.

http://www.sykes.com
http://ph.sykes.com/prehire_sykes.html?x=services

They do phone support for example for the cell phone companies in USA.

What is really striking is that people who had applied numerous times to be call center agents and were denied numerous times over the past 2 - 3 years, are now being snapped up and paid $400 salaries (that is roughly equivalent to a $5000 salary in USA in terms of status in society).

So I definitely sense first hand with numerous examples, the acceleration in outsourcing as Western companies respond to the depression, by cutting costs on labor.

Shelby wrote:Overpopulation not causing unemployment

We could produce enough food for the 7 billion in a land area smaller than Texas. Overpopulation is not a problem, not even close.

What is causing unemployment is the mis-allocation of capital due to over use of debt for decades.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20857.html#comment92402

Debt is socialism and theft as I have explained at above link.

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article16212.html

To restore full employment, we need to restore the gold and silver money system, as explain in above link, savers were 33,900% more wealthy in the 1800s than 1900s.

As automation and technology has increased, it should be fostering many new jobs, but the problem is the mis-allocation has retarted everything. For one thing, the west wouldn't have been so lopsidedly more wealthy than the developing world, without the fraud of debt fiat system that has enslaved the world.

Shelby wrote:Opportunity cost of college degree

http://market-ticker.org/archives/2499-The-Case-For-And-Against-College.html

Denninger runs some computations at above link.

The academic, who is in her early 60s, particularly resented being to forced to state that she did not want butter or cheese on her bagel.

Many cafes ask customers whether they would like such extras with their orders in an attempt to boost takings.

She told the New York Post newspaper: "I refused to say 'without butter or cheese.' When you go to Burger King, you don't have to list the six things you don't want.

"Linguistically, it's stupid, and I'm a stickler for correct English."
Prof Rosenthal added: "The barista said, 'You're not going to get anything unless you say butter or cheese!'"

She claims the manager of the Starbucks on the Upper West Side of Manhattan called the police as the spat escalated. Officers threatened the customer with arrest unless she left the shop and agreed not to return.

A Starbucks staff member who witnessed the clash accused Prof Rosenthal of taking an aggressive tone. They said: "She would not answer. It was a reasonable question."

Shelby wrote:Buy silver, it will only take 1% of us doing that to bankrupt centralization:

http://silverstockreport.com/2010/one-percent.html

Those who don't buy any will be destitute. We will have to help them by investing our silver. We will be millionaires and billionaires.

Nice solution eh

One threat caveat:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20327.html

Shelby wrote:Rick, actually Mr. Tomlinson is correct that west doesn't need manufacturing per se, it needs to adjust to a net exports balance productive stance in its core strengths, but the reason the western economies are not quickly and positively adjusting to good globalization is because the elite who want bad globalization are destroying the real-time feedback loop in markets that would cause people to make the correct decisions about their present and future:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2534#comment-278220 (Jocelyn is me)
http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=2539#comment-278213
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20327.html#comment94598 (Good Globalization)

Rather, Rick from your past comments on this site, you propose to introduce more delay and false promises, thus aiding the elite (and playing right into their strategy as they expect you to) in causing a worse catastrophe that will hand them control in a global grab, aka "rescue" or world war:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:marketoracle.co.uk+Rick+Shelby

Why invest in $0 wages?

Furthermore, manufacturing is being automated and eventually it will add no value and pay no wages. In the next 10 - 20 years, designs fed into a computer will be built and replicated by a nanotechnology bot. The valued added is the services, the design, the engineering, the integration of components, marketing, analysis, etc..

Americans would have a long time ago been more motivated to invest in the future, had their motivation not been turned upside down by the manipulation of interest rates:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article20263.html

But the Americans demanded this manipulation and of course supply will always rise to meet demand:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article21650.html

shelby wrote:

dash wrote:...In the world I envision human labor is not valuable, or indeed required, because the machines will do all the boring rat-race grunt work people are doing today. In today's world, all money is a representation of human labor. Money as exists today will not exist tomorrow...

Even today, money is not a representation of labor, in fact labor is very cheap and getting cheaper all the time. Money is representation of relative knowledge.

If you could succeed in making everything free as you asserted (see my prior post), then there would be no relative knowledge, as proved today:

https://goldwetrust.forumotion.com/technology-f8/theory-of-everthing-t124.htm#3583

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:The irony of the statist is he feigns rationalism as his argument, but statism is easily demonstrated to be irrational, i.e. logically incongruent with itself. I suppose that is why some anarchists scratch their head and conclude that desire for statism must be correlated to insufficient IQ, but not just any kind of IQ, rather the economic generative essence sort of reasoning capability.

Thus statism and the resultant loss of life is an evolutionary filter, that will increase the generative essence IQ of mankind.

@Jocelyn
> I also wrote the gateway is narrow, but I mean that most people won’t find the door. Anarchy is already occurring for some people.

Some people are already living in anarchy. They accomplish this by reducing their opportunity cost to near 0 for all forms of power created by democracy-by-proxy. They expend 0 effort trying to defeat statism for others. Realize the math of the N! factorial scaling law is such that diverse interactions among small groups of 100 to 1000 people can increase their knowledge beyond any capability of the rest of humanity:

"Do you know how fast N! scales where N is the number of possible independent actors and N! is the possible sets of permutations of connections?

5! = 125
10! = 3628800
100! = 9.3e+157"

Add 1000! = 4.0e+2567

@Jocelyn
> Insurance is mathematically equivalent to statism. If you can’t devise adequate security reliability, then insurance can’t either.

It seems that insurance is one of the last math hurdles for anarchist-to-be. Insurance pools capital and makes statistical predictions about the category being insured. But the anarchist N! math is that real-time change is necessary in order to maximize knowledge, i.e. optimum fitness for each situation requires each actor be uncorrelated/unconstrained in the future (agreement in the present is okay). If that is not sufficient to explain why insurance is mathematically equivalent to statism, then please reply and I will explain it exhaustively.

@Jocelyn
> He said the men are so feminine, that they prefer a bossy/dominant woman.

Please realize I am not excluding individual cases, as I argued in my white hot coals and blocks of ice heterogeneous analogy, the average obfuscates the diversity.

One of the planks of the Communist Manifesto is “no oppressed child labor, no submissive barefoot and pregnant women”. Everything is supposed to be equal, e.g. women as a category are supposed to be as good as men in math but standardized tests show they are not. The statist argues that this is environmental and can be “fixed” with a proper public education and sterilization policy. So it is no big surprise that the birth rates in Europe are extinction level, and for another reason being children are universally undesirable because their labor is taboo.

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:@Roger Phillips
> We have had free universal healthcare for years and yet we are not growing a deficit.

That is a cash accounting statistics. Do the actuarial accounting and you find a huge unfunded liability that implodes your economy in the end. Do not forget to include the low birth rates in the calculation.

> Ireland, New Zealand, Israel all have universal, free health care, and all have birth rates higher than the US.

The correlation being debate earlier was relative to statism, not the small subset of universal health care. Obviously some countries are younger in their adoption of statism and haven't yet reaped the "benefits" of the Communist Manifesto plank on the elimination of children. Do we need to refute your mistake 7 times?

@Tom DeGisi
> It is often said that communism would work well if humans were ants. Well, anarchism would work well if humans were bears.

@Jocelyn
> You make legislation to regulate every insect on planet earth, especially ants.
> Can they stomp all the ants on earth? Somethings are just impossible.
> Afaik, ants form an N! virtual information network even though their physical network is hierarchal bifurcating tree.

Ants and bees are anarchists, they use N! factorial virtual network scaling law.

Their physical network is not N! factorial, but rather a bifurcating tree gaining statism trunk-wise (queen bee/ant).

Although they are statist in their protection of their physical trunk, the orthogonal colonies (one can even view small, large, red, black colonies operating side-by-side but not communicating with each other) form redundancy.

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:@Winter
> Market economies generate a lot of wealth. However, they seem to be pretty bad in distribution it.
> I am told that there are no empirical ways to prove the correctness of the anti-statist theses

"Sorry to beat a dead" duck, there is some historical evidence that anti-statism (aka anarchy) distributes wealth more equitably and increases prosperity faster.

Winter I genuinely believe that you believe in your public health, public education, long-life, public safety, equitable wealth, civilized society, etc.. That is the grotesque nature of statism-- it lies to its own before it eats them. The signature of statism is to expect its members to gleefully spout how wonderful it is to ignorantly poison+addict, indoctrinate, cannibalize, dis-arm, steal, and barbarize each other.

Some Guy named Timothy wrote a fairy tale about this phenomenon, "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, [...] Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth [...] But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as their's also was". And even another warning was given, "Now listen to them; but warn them solemnly and let them know what the king who will reign over them will do". But the people refused, "'No!' they said. 'We want a king over us. Then we will be like all the other nations, with a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles'". And then the fairy tale was fulfilled as promised, "Now go [...] and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass".

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:@The Monster
>> Crime is a free market.
>
> No, it isn’t. When a burglar breaks into my home [...] I did not freely enter into the transaction. He imposed it upon me by force.

Actually crime is a free market. The other things you mentioned were your statist attempts to avoid the annealing of the free market. It is each person's responsibility to effect his/her ownership. If you allow the burglar to break in and you did not shoot him, then you lose, and that is the way the free market teaches us (anneals to) several things:

1. Don't pretend I own that which I do not. There is a fairy tale that says we are just stewards.
2. Don't ignore the poor.
3. Don't blame others for my failures.
4. Secure things which I own, which I don't think the poor need more than I do (e.g. if I am investing to lift them up more than they could).
5. Don't let capital sit idle because I am too inept to use it to lift the poor up.

Statism is simply a result of the inability of men to submit to the free market. The anarchist-to-be who claims public property rights enforcement (or insurance which is the same statist poison), is incongruent in his/her expectations.

The new economy makes it even easier to accept and embrace the free market, because orthogonal (referentially transparent) knowledge (aka sharing, even monetized so lets call it transacting), benefits from being stolen (shared). Tada!

Linus Law again.

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:@Adam
> A free market is a market free of force and coercion

False. It is a market free of forward contracts, including the statist variety.

The anarchist-to-be who does not understand that most fundamental point is hopelessly conflicted and will not accomplish much.

I wrote a long comment explaining this in more detail, but it was censored.

But it doesn't matter, because I am publishing all my comments to several different blogs. Truth can not be stopped.

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:@Winter
> Is your biggest fear really that someone might profit from your work? That predicts a rather unfriendly anarchistic society.

I dealt with that in my prior comment which was censored. Actually the anarchist model I proposed, insures that everyone profits, because all knowledge is orthogonal and benefits from being stolen (aka shared). I have made the point numerous times in the past few blogs that open source does not cannibalize profits, rather it prioritizes speed of integration. We were put on this earth to love each other, and that means to accelerate our priorities towards the greatest benefits for the most in need. The difference between the anarchist and the statist, is the later proposes to accomplish it by force, which incongruent to the goal. Unfortunately our moderator thinks this is "nutty", but what will be "nutty" is the decision to ban the messenger of the idea that changes the world. I am recording this by posting these to numerous blogs with links back here, so we can made our resident censor more famous for this than his Linus Law.

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:It is particularly relevant to this anarchy thread, to ponder the non-narcissist, algorithmically correct response when potentially asked in the future about Copute, "Should Eric Raymond be demoted to 'the guy who censored [the messenger of] an idea that radically improved the world'?".

Seems it would be mathematically superior to answer before it is asked-- publish soonest and often.

In a free market, although it is ironic that Raymond scolds Apple for insufficient openness on its iPhone app store, Apple and Raymond both have the freedom to censor what they allow their users to see and use, even after both creator and users have already a vested mutual interest dependent on the gatekeeper.

Coase's theorem will decide if a gatekeeper's authority should be reduced or increased. I understand that both the surety contract (e.g. promise of no censorship) and the centralized decision (i.e. authority) distort the optimum annealing of the free market, but so would no authority and imposition of the will of a spammer on all users.

Spam (aka trolling) is mathematically defined as very low information content, as correlated to the users' interests. A gatekeeper's interests that diverge from the users' interest, will not be respected by Coase's theorem. I have algorithm ideas about how blog software should enable the users to select what they want filtered, but we don't have that capability yet in this case.

So the answer is finally that if such a characterization of Raymond's legacy becomes popular, then "should?" is no longer relevant.

I hope that logic has freed our emotions to carry on with more productive endeavors.

Note this has been posted to numerous blogs in order to minimize the potential re-routing damage inflicted by Coase's theorem.

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:@Jocelyn
> Better model for attacking tyranny is one that is popular, then anonymity is not relevant [...] More effective
> to work on popular models which the entire Iranian population will use that are like termites to statism.

China as evidence.

Shelby aka Jocelyn wrote:> Why can’t we all have the amount and kinds of regulation and redistribution we want?

Because of the iron law of political economics is such that the dead-weight *must* metastasize and eventually kill the host, due to power vacuum between what individuals want (their opportunity cost) and the group's opportunity cost which can be forced on individuals.

Cycles of socialism catastrophe is what we get until individuals have the technological capacity to ignore the will of the majority, i.e. the power vacuum is eliminated.

Jim wrote:Meredith Whitney

http://usawatchdog.com/when-meredith-speaks-you-should-listen/

Shelby wrote:Most people think sovereign bonds interest rates must rise soon, but afaics, they fail to understand the nature of the global debt trap we are in:

http://financialsense.com/contributors/shelby-moore/perpetual-deflation-causes-inflation

Dr. Martenson, the most fundamental aspect that causes abrupt change, i.e. Minsky moments, is that centralization of policy prevents optimum annealing.

Or more generally stated, the universe is trending to maximum disorder, and pockets of exponential order along the way, implode back to trend exponentially. Failure to comprehend the exponential quality of nature, i.e. entropy, is the greatest human inability.

A person I often agree with, the monetary PhD scientist Antal Fekete has postulated that the Yuan is strong.

But the reason that I disagree with him is very relevant to why tariffs do not work.

The centralization of fitness is always a weakness. Maximum annealing to optimum fitness only occurs with a free market of individual trials. I am sure Dr. Fekete understands why I say, this is why only gold is money.

For the specific weaknesses of China's centralized economic and monetary policy, read my recent article.

Note I recently wrote a scholarly research paper about the theory of annealing fitness and free markets. That research derives or fits into a theory of the universe that I have proposed as a way to unify Einstein's General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics (Quantum Information). (note I am planning to study "Q-Orders" as potential self-similarity case of "frequency" in my theory)

As for Peak Oil, we have more Natural Gas in the world that we know what to do with, and cars run just as well with CNG as they do on gasoline or diesel, losing only 10% power if a $1000 conversion kit is employed on a gas engine without compression ratio increase. Honda's CNG Civic is equivalent to gas in performance, except your cost per mile drops significantly due to the fact that CNG is much less expensive per energy unit than gas. And we can make our own CNG in our back yard from human and animal feces, or even from any organic matter. Also nuclear and then later nanotech will reduce the cost of energy significantly. Those who like to quote EROEI, forget that energy efficiency is a function of technology, since everything (i.e. my definition of 'matter') that is not infinitely disordered, contains some energy. It is the relative order that allows energy to do useful work.

However, we are likely to see Minsky moments with respect to oil, because of the non-optimum annealing rate due to centralized policy of many genres. This is just the way nature deals with change.

Shelby wrote:Rick we already had this debate and you did not reply to the final conclusion:

http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article23142.html#comment95223

The new information I want to offer is that the big socialism mess ("Great Harlot system") is going to die irregardless of how you try to save it:

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/prediction-things-will-unravel-faster-than-you-think/45297?page=6#comment-90991

The only options forward are individual decisions to come out of the big mess. The political non-solutions you are suggesting, won't work to save the big mess of socialism.

Rick you do realize you are being a socialist, when you want collective action?

Shelby wrote:re: France & Economics 101

Rick, you are conflating the issues.

Some of France's main reasons for economic success are the individual actions:

1) their women make enough babies, unlike rest of EU, so they do not have horrific funding crisis due to declining population and youth.

2) Their INDIVIDUAL small farmers right for their individual interests and resist being used as pawns for nationalistic collective action (as is your proposed tariff):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/frances-farmers-cause-a-stink-over-fast-food-1115226.html

The above free market individual actions are enough apparently to offset some of the negative socialistic pursuits of the unions in France:

http://www.just-food.com/news/farmers-intensify-pressure-over-milk-prices_id112077.aspx

Rick you simply don't understand Economics 101. If you manipulate (distort) the pricing of the market, you distort the market supply and demand, but nature always finds a way around your manipulation and thus your manipulation is a misallocation of resources and will come crashing down with great loss to those who participated.

You ask what individual actions we can do to escape the socialism and fascism we have now? Well certainly not adding more socialism (amazing you try to fix your problem by making it worse and adding to power of those who are manipulating you and you can't even see that!).

Well for one, buy gold and silver and save more. Second, move out the USA, or move to a rural area to lower expenses to near 0, and take up farming and a vocation on the internet. I am paying big money for programmers, graphic design, etc.

Rather you waste our time and effort with your nonsense proposal to distort of the market even more, which of course the politically connected will profit from most. I will sure I computer program (social networking, etc) ways around your tariff.

End of debate. It is nonsense. You don't get it.