UK government about to start monitoring personal data on social network sites

[Skybird]

Privacy in the digital age? Forget it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7962631.stm

All in the name of security, of course.

Freedom and security are antagonists. You can't have both.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Privacy in the digital age? Forget it.
Freedom and security are antagonists. You can't have both.

That is only true if the state is trusted to provide both.

[Respenus]

That is only true if the state is trusted to provide both.

The government is also considering proposals to store all communications data on a single database, which may be run by a private company.

Yes and the fact that the UK government has lost its data more times than I could count doesn't really help. Also don't forget they mentioned the data would be stored on private servers and not on government one's.

I dislike social networking sites and I believe they bring nothing good, yet I am against such blatant attacks on personal liberties.

[Skybird]

That is only true if the state is trusted to provide both.
Really?

If the state only deals with security issues, he necessarily can only do so at the cost of freedoms. It is a side-effect you cannot avoid.

If the state only is about guaranteeing freedom, security will be compromised, agaion as an unavoidable side-effect.

It does not matter whether the state is the only actor, or shares responsibility for both factors with some other player.

And who should that other player be? Private business...? If so, then help us God (if that is not a hidden irony in there...) Private business minds it's own interests only, that's in it's very nature in a capitalistic order. where it should provide security, you have business lobbies formulating future laws and regulations. you have security companies, from parkdeck-guards to mercenary corporations. And where business is seen as a function to influence culture and shape of a society for more freedom (ignoring for a moment how that freedom from a business-oriented perpsdeltive gets defined: the trade with rare African ores in civil war regions, or blood diamonds, also is understood to be liberal trade), business will necessarily try to ease security barriers in order to get a greater liberalisation of the market (and eventually it nevertheless will demand protectionistic measures to shield itself from unwanted competition reducing it's profits).

So I cannot see in what way your remark is relevant.

[SteamWake]

Wait a minute... what do you mean 'start' ?

Oh there just now publicly announcing it... I get it.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Really?

If the state only deals with security issues, he necessarily can only do so at the cost of freedoms. It is a side-effect you cannot avoid.

If the state only is about guaranteeing freedom, security will be compromised, agaion as an unavoidable side-effect.

It does not matter whether the state is the only actor, or shares responsibility for both factors with some other player.


You are too readily discounting the role of the individual in assuring his own freedoms and security. The state is required to provide some security, of course, but its' role should be as limited as possible to prevent the resultant damage of freedoms.

And who should that other player be? Private business...? If so, then help us God (if that is not a hidden irony in there...) Private business minds it's own interests only, that's in it's very nature in a capitalistic order. where it should provide security, you have business lobbies formulating future laws and regulations. you have security companies, from parkdeck-guards to mercenary corporations. And where business is seen as a function to influence culture and shape of a society for more freedom (ignoring for a moment how that freedom from a business-oriented perpsdeltive gets defined: the trade with rare African ores in civil war regions, or blood diamonds, also is understood to be liberal trade), business will necessarily try to ease security barriers in order to get a greater liberalisation of the market (and eventually it nevertheless will demand protectionistic measures to shield itself from unwanted competition reducing it's profits).

So I cannot see in what way your remark is relevant.

You miss my point, entirely. I am not advocating the empowerment of private corporations to decide issues of security and freedom. I only support the freedom of such firms and the freedom of consumers to choose amongst them.
You too readily discount the fact that the state also minds its' own interests, entirely. You even mention how business uses the state, and yet you fail to see the harms of the state.

The powers of the state in any regulatory capacity must be very strictly limited, and must also be subject to public scrutiny. Where you see the state an opponent to private intersts, I see a dangerous corroberation.
The free market cannot be stopped. It will always exsist. Where the state interferes, it will seek advantage. Where the state destroys it, it will simply resurface outside the authority of the state. When either of these things happen, the rest of us suffer, because we are denied a choice in the market.

Since the market cannot be regulated much without causing undue economic duress, the state must be regulated . It must be prevented from interfering with and cooperating with the market.

The goal should be the preservation of individual freedoms. True, some people make the wrong decisions and suffer, but it is only their own doing and it affects only them and those who choose to aid them. When the state chooses wrong, or worse, when business chooses wrong and the state is in its' employ, everyone suffers.

The one question that continually irks me is; who do you trust to decide these policies, if not the conflicting wills of billions of individuals? Which group amongst them should be given the power to govern? How will such a group prevent harms that are not inherent in the system, if not exacerbate them? It is one thing to have an intelligent outlook on things, it is quite another to devise a reliable sytem of realizing it.
History has proven time and again that the state is not the answer, so what is your answer?

[Skybird]

You need to balance both the interests of the community (as being represented by an elected government with the power to regulate the market) and freedom for markets.

If you leave it to a self-regulating state, you have a dictatorship by politicians turning into tyrants. If you have an economy regulating itself, you have a tendency to slavery, monopolism, and economic anarchy driven by unlimited selfishness - the total and nihilistic materialism you get additional and for free, then. Therefore, you need both as lomng as you do ot live alone on the planet. Business and community are antagonists. Social community wants business to serve it'S interests. Business wants community to serve it's interests. In a capitalistic order, you have to add: business wants no competition, but monopolism. The stronger your monopole, the more power you have to enforce your profit interests onto the community. the more competiton, the more compromise oyu have to accept, at the cost of your profit interests. In such a setting, the demand for selfregulating markets has nothing to do with freedom anymore. Monopolism prevents freedom, including the freedom of choice. You have seen that in the five-year-plan economies of the european East. Here, the state was political tyrant and economic monopolist at the same time.

As little regulation as possible, so that business can unfold and be creative, and can compete. As much regulation as needed to prevent monopolism and lacking competition, and protect the interests of the community from being thrown over by interests of the economy.

The idea of unregulated markets is dead since the current crisis at the latest. No matter what attempts there are in argument to blame other factors, the primary problem has been a financial system that has been left to itself to regulate itself - everything else is just an excuse attempting to avoid putting this holy golden cow of "self-regulating markets" into question. Unlimited greed, total lack of sense of responsibility, and maximum, criminal egoism has been the result. It simply does not work that way. It only works that way at the cost of the community, when the many have to repair the damage, and compensate for it, that is done by the few in the name of their own egoism. Self regulating market - that would only work if man would be a reasonable, altruistic being by nature and essence. But in fact, man is unreasonable, driven by irrational emotion, and a born egoist. we are Homo Sapiens - no rational Vulcans.

But all this and what you said has nothign to do with the basic principle of that statement: the more security, the less freedom - the more freedom, the less security. The more anti-terror-laws, the more limiting of basic rights. The more basic rights, the less prevention against terrorism.

You can't have both. you need to find a balance that you can live with. That means to not look at the individual event (or lack of), where the probabilities already have sprung to either 100 or to 0%, but to find a balance where the overall general probablities are such that you can accept the resulting ammount of limitations to your freedoms, and the remaining threats of terrorism.

That is the price of having an open society basing on the individual, instead of having a totalitarian one, where the state is all and the individual counts nothing.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Yeah, havent you heard? Terrorists put "Occuptation: Terrorist" on their Facebook pages now.


:shifty:

[SteamWake]

Yeah, havent you heard? Terrorists put "Occuptation: Terrorist" on their Facebook pages now.


:shifty:


What was your first clue?

http://gawker.com/5183688/teen-slay-suspects-satanic-myspace-page

[UnderseaLcpl]

As little regulation as possible, so that business can unfold and be creative, and can compete. As much regulation as needed to prevent monopolism and lacking competition, and protect the interests of the community from being thrown over by interests of the economy.

Well we are in agreement about this much, at least. I suspect that we disagree on how much regulation is needed, however.

The idea of unregulated markets is dead since the current crisis at the latest. No matter what attempts there are in argument to blame other factors, the primary problem has been a financial system that has been left to itself to regulate itself - everything else is just an excuse attempting to avoid putting this holy golden cow of "self-regulating markets" into question.

Are you certain that you considered that opinion objectively? First amongst the many arguments against regulation is that it often causes the problems to begin with. In terms of the current crisis, one cannot make the case that the U.S. financial markets were unregulated, or even minimally regulated. How many pages of pre-crisis financial regulations would you like me to find for you? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? The Library of Congress has an extensive database.
When confronted with that type of regulation, in addition to heavy taxes, and the army of expensive lawyers required to comply with those regulations, is it any wonder that so many institutions seized upon the opportunity to use government-created initiatives for profit? Even then, the regulations and regulators failed in their task, obviously.

The idea of the unregulated market cannot exsist, (if it ever really did) you are correct in that, imo. But very minimally regulated markets make billions of unregulated transactions every day without fail. They are regulated only by supply and demand. And when the market does fail, we have recession, but recession is a good thing. It adjusts the market quickly and effectively.

At this point, I have a hard time arguing anything further because I don't know what kind of regulations you would like to see, and who should execute them and how. It is one thing to say that business should accept responsibility for community affairs outside of what is inherent in market dynamics, it is quite another to say that agency A should pursue policy B overseen by C to achieve effect D.


I'm sure that both of us would agree that strong anti-fraud regulation is required, provided that it is not overly expensive to maintain or too pervasive. I would favor a system of very harsh penalties for clear cases of fraud. We can agree on that, yes?
I feel the best system would simply be to implement harsh penalties for fraud that is exposed and reported, rather than detailing (and trusting) the state to deal with cumbersome and costly preventative investigation.
That is the main form of regulation I would support. I would even go so far as to agree that some (limited) anti-trust regulation could be used, to foster competition.


Unlimited greed, total lack of sense of responsibility, and maximum, criminal egoism has been the result. It simply does not work that way. It only works that way at the cost of the community, when the many have to repair the damage, and compensate for it, that is done by the few in the name of their own egoism. Self regulating market - that would only work if man would be a reasonable, altruistic being by nature and essence. But in fact, man is unreasonable, driven by irrational emotion, and a born egoist. we are Homo Sapiens - no rational Vulcans.

The same could be said of the state, with a lot more empyrical proof. Even at the worst of times, most free-market states tend to suffer less.
And Vulcans would make terrible businessmen;).
The key to the free-market is harnessing man's flaws through competition to provide the best result for everyone.



But all this and what you said has nothign to do with the basic principle of that statement: the more security, the less freedom - the more freedom, the less security. The more anti-terror-laws, the more limiting of basic rights. The more basic rights, the less prevention against terrorism.

You can't have both. you need to find a balance that you can live with. That means to not look at the individual event (or lack of), where the probabilities already have sprung to either 100 or to 0%, but to find a balance where the overall general probablities are such that you can accept the resulting ammount of limitations to your freedoms, and the remaining threats of terrorism.

That is the price of having an open society basing on the individual, instead of having a totalitarian one, where the state is all and the individual counts nothing.


Once again, you too easily discount the effectiveness of private interests in security roles. One must employ the selfish nature of man to create security without the sacrifice of freedom. An armed populace, and the freedom of private interests to manage their own security affairs will create a superior system that harms neither liberty nor safety and is regulated only by the direct choice of the people.

Unlike the state, private industry is directly accountable for any failures. Take the example of 9/11. Airlines suffered for years, through no fault of their own, because the state was entrusted with administering and regulating security protocols, and failed. However, the state ballooned after its' failure, to the tune of billions of dollars of taxpayer money, and remains not only ineffective but vexacious as well, in the form of the TSA and the Department of Homeland Security.

To give or fail to strictly limit power to the state will always yield similar results in due time and always has. I think we agree on some basic principles, but until you provide some superior system of keeping the state in check and avoiding the occasional harms of the market, I can't say whether or not I can agree with you.

[Skybird]

@ Lance, 1 of 2


Well, we are in agreement about this much, at least. I suspect that we disagree on how much regulation is needed, however.

Are you certain that you considered that opinion objectively? First amongst the many arguments against regulation is that it often causes the problems to begin with. In terms of the current crisis, one cannot make the case that the U.S. financial markets were unregulated, or even minimally regulated. How many pages of pre-crisis financial regulations would you like me to find for you? 1000? 10,000? 100,000? The Library of Congress has an extensive database.

When confronted with that type of regulation, in addition to heavy taxes, and the army of expensive lawyers required to comply with those regulations, is it any wonder that so many institutions seized upon the opportunity to use government-created initiatives for profit? Even then, the regulations and regulators failed in their task, obviously.

You just said it yourself, we disagree on the ammount of regulation needed. Europe was battling for years, namely Germany, again the Anglosaxon "cartel" that prevented monitoring, transparency and a supervision of rating standards. From our standards, what you considered regulation of the finance market - was a bad and lame joke. Yesterday, the government zizagged again (after first having agreed to european demands, then indicated it was ruddering back). Now Geithner currently says again that more regulation is needed. Even the once untouchable Hedge fonds he wants to put on a very short line. I wpould ban them alltogether, but okay, if the line is so short that they need to fight for their breathing air, that could be a compromise.

The idea of the unregulated market cannot exsist, (if it ever really did) you are correct in that, imo. But very minimally regulated markets make billions of unregulated transactions every day without fail. They are regulated only by supply and demand. And when the market does fail, we have recession, but recession is a good thing. It adjusts the market quickly and effectively.

1st, the current thing we have is NOT a good thing, it is a desaster of first class quality. It is a threat to us all. 2nd, for example most nuclear powerplants work flawlessly and do not require to switch to emergency protocols, nevertheless these protocols get developed and are being hold at the ready, for just one nuclear desaster on great scale can not only ruin your day, but the coming years and decades. Regulation is not the state deciding on every transaction. It is about obligatory set of rules to which all much submit, no matter whether they want it or not, to guarantee the transparency, the responsibility, the robustness of rating standards that are needed to reduce the likelihood of worst case accidents as we currently have it, and to hinder the criminal and selfish, greedy behavior of the few doing damage for the sake of their private banking account at the cost of the many. The human factor has been ignored so far, or better: it got nice-talked, saying the egoism of the few means benefit for the community as well. That has been proven wrong. It paved the way into self-expanding anarchy, pushed by the dinosaur with the greatest claws and teeth.

At this point, I have a hard time arguing anything further because I don't know what kind of regulations you would like to see, and who should execute them and how.

I have said that several times in various postings to you now, Lance. It is not about the state taking decision command in making internal policies of private institutions. It is about establishing new mandatory rules for all. the state is no too competent businessman, especially not with political parties rivalling for power by making gifts to the voters and eroding democracy and turning it into a form of oligarchies or plutocracies, with the difference between both more and more disappearing. And from Germany we know that especially the banks we call "Landesbanken" over here (that are one bank per federal state directly supervised by a board of non-experts but politicians who use them to make a personal income, you could say these are state-run and state-owned banks), were the first showing their dilletantism, and being the first to show major damage caused by incompetence, before any of the private banks did. I have argued against the state governing all decision-making in economy often enough,I think, I do not argue in favour of a state-run economy. but we need better, tighter rules by which business must run, and we need an office monitoring that these rules are being followed, and these offices must be strong enough in ressources and power that they can do the job. The monitoring systems we have had so far have failed miserably both in the Us and Germany - in one aspect they did so last but not least because they based too much on the too unsolid standards of rating agencies, and trusted the market too much - for no good. the greater the chance that lies will be discorvered, the smaller the probabuiliuty that somebody will lie, and the smaller the overall number of acvtual lies indeed. Trust is kind. Control is MUCH better. When it comes to money, my trust in the good of man comes to a sudden end. people kill each other for ten dollars. what do you think people are willing to do for an income of ten million dollars? Laws and control are for making sure everybody behaves.

I'm sure that both of us would agree that strong anti-fraud regulation is required, provided that it is not overly expensive to maintain or too pervasive.

Too pervasive? It has to do the job, if communal interest of sufficient critical quality and quantity are at risk. Let it be as pervasive as needed to acchieve that. Salus Publica Suprema Lex.

I would favor a system of very harsh penalties for clear cases of fraud. We can agree on that, yes?

Maybe not. For me, an ethical quality is included in the definition of crime, and cannot escape to be so. From that perspective, I personally rate the shameless behavior of a banker who failed, whose bank lost billions, causing existential crisis for many private people, but still taking his million-heavy boni, even demanding them, even going tom court to get them (as happened) - as fraud. The current legal situation says that while they behave unethical, they are legally correct. I do not accept that status.

I feel the best system would simply be to implement harsh penalties for fraud that is exposed and reported, rather than detailing (and trusting) the state to deal with cumbersome and costly preventative investigation.

That is the main form of regulation I would support. I would even go so far as to agree that some (limited) anti-trust regulation could be used, to foster competition.

that is the classical mistake - to assume the wanted effect gets acchieved by arguing for higher penalties. But that alone is not enough. You need the quality, the power, the option, the possibility to reveal, to discover, to pursue the wrong-doing where it takes place. Laws against burglary help you nothing if your police is too weak to patrol in the streets. I also insist on changing business rules in a way that makes certain ways of doing business, certain "products", a forbidden option. Some of the finance products being developed by - sorry- American banks and then introduced and spread over the global finance markets were so sick and problematic from the very beginning that they never should have been allowed to be used and sold, for example, like in Germany for example you are not allowed to operate your car if it fails to pass a technical checkup every four years that checks the vital, security-relevant marks. Items not passing must be repaired immediately, or they sack the operation licence for that car - you do or you lose, period. Or when the weather gets too cold and you still ride on summer tires and run into a traffic control or worse: cause an accident, you not only could lose part of your insurance protection, but you commited a legal violation, and must pay a penalty. It can be quite hurting.

Without such controls, and the ressources needed to maintain and guarantee them, such standards could be ignored too easily. Controls need to be pervasive to a certain degree, else they do not work.

The same could be said of the state, with a lot more empyrical proof. Even at the worst of times, most free-market states tend to suffer less.

There is a difference. It has been repeatedly argued, and even is admitted by American economists, that Germany with it'S much better social security web than America in a crisis like this by this major structural difference produces a higher economic request that helps to boost the economy to a certain degree, than it is the case in america. That's why the sh!t hits us with a delay. Of course it compensates to a certain degree only, and not beyond. Point is: free market economy is not the same like free market economy. Your American ultra-liberal market economy is different than our social market economy. what you Americans often mock us for - so far has worked to our advanatge in this crisis. It is an additonal stimulus automatic.

And Vulcans would make terrible businessmen.

Or they would make formidable business man. For example not sawing off the branch on which they sit, but running an economy by sustainable management instead of accepting longterm desaster for the short-termed profit. That way you also make yourself less enemies at whose cost your acting has been. The ego is the worst of all tyrants. ;)

[Skybird]

@ Lance, 2 of 2


The key to the free-market is harnessing man's flaws through competition to provide the best result for everyone.

For me, the market format, including "free market", is not the goal, but only a tool to acchieve other goals. And that competition alone does not harnass man'S flaws, we just have seen. 2008 alone it costed us 38 trillion dollars that got burned - and that are just the known numbers. In capitalism, you have the never disapperaring trend towards monopolism, because the less competition there is, the more power you have, and the more you can enforce conditions that increase your profits. Capitalism leads to monopolism - and the destruction of "free markets".

I think you ignore, and I should have mentioned earlier, one major quality: scale, size. much of what you say, as well as the basic idea of democratic participation, works nice and well - as long as the community does not exceed a certain size. basic democracy is a thing for small villages, but not for metropoles and nations with hundreds of millions of people. When you live in an environment where the one knows the other and both have grown up together, you see good will and lacking regulation working easier, than in communities of such a size that their structure cannot be overwatched anymore. Here, the principle of voluntariness must be replaced with that of legally binding, obligatory nature. This I think is true for what has been said so far, and is true as well for what you said later regarding "security". Seen that way, I think you argue with an archaic world in mind - that of the founding phase of america, with limited population, small communities and neighbourship that was both limited in availability and vital in mutual support. but the world has changed, and is no more like that. If it has changed for the better, can be argued. :) Regarding the injection at the dentist, it certainly has.

Once again, you too easily discount the effectiveness of private interests in security roles. One must employ the selfish nature of man to create security without the sacrifice of freedom. An armed populace, and the freedom of private interests to manage their own security affairs will create a superior system that harms neither liberty nor safety and is regulated only by the direct choice of the people.

maybe that is with regard to the thieve in your house. but leave anti-terror-strategies and military planning to your population and private people, and you are screwed. Local militias, both of policing or paramilitary nature, worked fine in the wild west with Indians and the British empirial army still being a threat, and the often debated freedom to carry firearms must be seen in that context, and only makes sense in that historical context. but the world has changed. Neighbours patrolling the street at night will not do anything against terrorism. The militia of northern virgina will help nothing to impress the Chinese over resource fields in the Chinese sea. Even more helplessness you discover when considering this enormous white consumer's demand for drugs - which lets both official and private efforts to wage a "war on drugs" (hahaha) running straight into nirvana. Some days ago I saw this very good movie, "Traffic". At the end, Michael Douglas says something like "for many of us americans, fighting the war on drugs means to fight a war against one or more members of our own family (he thought of his addictive daughter, while he himself ran for the nation's top job as anti drug official). But how do you do that - how do you wage war within your family?". The DEA already fights a lost war here, and is outclassed in ressources and capabilities. How much more security do you hope to achieve by the freedom to carry arms? Or consider Islamic terrorism. A possible military threat - that currently there is none does not mean there enver will be any again. organised crime. Corruption of authorities. Lobbyism in legislation, damaging community interests for the sake of corporation interests.

This is not high Noon on Main Street and you do not establish law and order in Dodge City by walking down to the saloon with a colt in your hand and making a grim face.

I can't see all that being solved - or even adressed - by your remarks. i also see my claimed antagonism and polarity of freedom and security being present in all these examples. In the end it does not matter whether security is pushed by the state, or the private man. you want more security - you limit your freedoms and that of others. Want to raise these freedoms: not without going at the cost of reduced security. security always goes towards greater restriction, and freedom always goes towards lesser restriction. That's how it is.

Unlike the state, private industry is directly accountable for any failures.
In the ideal case of the textbook democracy, the state and it'S representative is being held accountable, too - at the next elections at the latest.

Take the example of 9/11. Airlines suffered for years, through no fault of their own, because the state was entrusted with administering and regulating security protocols, and failed.

Take the example of the economic crisis. national communities (tax-payers, employees), and national economies suffer severly, through no fault of their own, because the banking sector and financial market was entrusted with adminstering itself and regulating security protocols, and failed.
:)

However, the state ballooned after its' failure, to the tune of billions of dollars of taxpayer money,
so does the boni and the incomes of top level managers and top bankers - also to the tune of billions of taxpayer'S dollars.

I have a principal issue with such insane payments in general. Let the span between the wages for the lowest w0rker and the top boss be something in the range of a factor of let's say 20. fine. But 800 bucks compared to 1 million bucks and more, and success boni when failing? sorry, the logic and reason that I use to use has no category to calculate this madness. I honestly thinks it cripples people's character. For whom enough is not enough, it will never be enou8gh, and he wants always more, and more, and more.

To give or fail to strictly limit power to the state will always yield similar results in due time and always has. I think we agree on some basic principles, but until you provide some superior system of keeping the state in check and avoiding the occasional harms of the market, I can't say whether or not I can agree with you.

For the x-th time, i am not about the state running private business. This can only be an option in cases of banks that are so-called "system-relevant", whose fall would cause a whole rat-tail of collapses following in their wake, with the survival of the functioning of the state and the nation being at risk as a final result of that. This can be a nation-crushing chain reaction, the meltdown of the core, the absolute and total worst case event - and it must be prevented, no matter how, no matter the costs. Examples are the German HRE, the greatest mess we have over here, or the american AIG, as I see it. Opel and GM are not such cases, to give a counter-example. The state is not in the business of managing private economy companies. But although our states and governments are seriously messed up and are rotting from within due to corruption, lobbyism and politicians no longer separating themselves from accepting payed jobs in the private economy and vice versa (which is the classical conflict of interests: comnpany versus public community), I see no alternative to the state running the executive and defining the legislative. Courts do not leave the assessing of a penalty and the interpretation of the law to the accused offender, and for good reason. Leaving the market to itself, and legislation influenced by lobby-interests by private economy, is not a reasonable alternative.

It is about establishing new, tighter rules for greater safeguarding against the unintended failing or the intended egoism of the few, against fraud, and against prevention ofas much transparency as possible. And it is about the tools and offices to see these rules through and monitor that players play by these rules, and violators get identified as soon as possible and being held responsible - hopefully before they have spelled global desaster again.


And last but not least: it is about america learning to reasonably manage the balance between what it consumes - and what it can afford to consume and produce itself. This endless leasing of money and living on tick must end. It has been one of the most major reasons for the mess the global economy now is in. I repeatedly compared to the money-cheat in Sim City. Early versions had one cheat-code to enter, that gave you a certain ammount of money, but not more, it was no infinite (let'S ignore hex-editioing and such). You used the cheat, to be used once only, and started to build and to construct, and what a wonderful city you built! And then came the time when the money was gone, and no more reserve to pay for the running costs. Soon you realised that it all was just unsolid facade, not able to maintain itself, for your econonomy was not build on healthy principles, but was ignored, since oyu had money to pay with and thoiught you do not need to shape a healthy economy. You build more and established more city service than your economy could support. And now: things start to rot. Streets do not get repaired. Crime rate climbs, buildings turn into ruins, people move away, increasing the trend of the general fall. your match is ruoined, your nice city - was unable to last. Currently, and in the past, Obama and his predecessors just entered another of their money cheats. Still no reasonable managing of the economy, still spending more on construction than the economy could support for financial maintenance, still consuming more than one could afford. Now consider you have used up all available money cheats, there is no more.

Go figure.

As one biologist once said to me: organisms and ecosystems growing slowly usually do not do much harm, often not any harm at all, but too fast growth - that does a lot of damage indeed, and sooner or later can kill the organism or ecosystem.

[UnderseaLcpl]

@ Lance, 1 of 2

1st, the current thing we have is NOT a good thing, it is a disaster of first class quality. It is a threat to us all.

Yes, but that is because of the measures the state is taking. Just like they did in the 30's and in the 60's and then the 70's, the state steps in with a bunch of new legislation and massive spending. The money supply relative to the GDP increases tremendously, causing stagflation, and then we're in a much worse spot than we would have been if we'd left everything alone.
Everytime this happens, it gets a little worse, because the state does more and more.


2nd, for example most nuclear powerplants work flawlessly and do not require to switch to emergency protocols, nevertheless these protocols get developed and are being hold at the ready, for just one nuclear desaster on great scale can not only ruin your day, but the coming years and decades. That analogy is invalid. The market cannot function without periodically "failing". Recession renews the market along more productive lines, assuming the state doesn't step in and inflate the currency and strangle innovation and competitive ability. That is where the problem lies. The state is always trying to develop expensive and invasive recession failsafes that then simply fail themselves.

Regulation is not the state deciding on every transaction. It is about obligatory set of rules to which all much submit, no matter whether they want it or not, to guarantee the transparency, the responsibility, the robustness of rating standards that are needed to reduce the likelihood of worst case accidents as we currently have it, and to hinder the criminal and selfish, greedy behavior of the few doing damage for the sake of their private banking account at the cost of the many.
We already have regulations like that, but you claim they are not enough so;
Easier said than done. For one thing, the prime culprit in the U.S. is the Central Bank, not the private ones. Their ability to fiat currency into exsistence is a big part of what makes these bubbles form. Unlike private banks, they are not required to maintain a set reserve of currency. However, they do lend to other banks, as well as everyone else.
When the market is hot and everyone wants in, the Central Bank creates a lot of capital out of thin air, and it works for a while, until the market adjusts. Then it all comes crashing down.
Private institutions without a fiat currency from a central bank couldn't do that. Borrowers would have to compete for loans, slowing the growth rate, which I agree is a good thing to an extent.

Secondly, how much would it cost to put all those regulations and the enforcement in place. It is not so easy as "show us your books". There is a major sector of the legal industry devoted solely to finding ways around business regulation, and the reason it exsists is because even expensive lawyers are cheaper and less strangulating than the labyrinthine state regulations. Ironically enough, their favorite loopholes come from previous or obscure regulations. You'd have to rewrite the legal code as well (which I think needs to be done)

The human factor has been ignored so far, or better: it got nice-talked, saying the egoism of the few means benefit for the community as well. That has been proven wrong. It paved the way into self-expanding anarchy, pushed by the dinosaur with the greatest claws and teeth.
It has not been proven wrong. This one recession does not disprove the comparitively positive record of lightly regulated capitalism, and it does not change the fact capitalism has fueled the most successful nations and the greatest advancements in the world, especially in the past 200 years.
There is also the heavy involvement of the state in this matter. It is not just the Central Bank, it is also sub-prime lending regulations, state-inflated energy prices, and soon, the effect of the government dumping 2 trillion dollars (in this year alone, more to come) into the money supply, to say nothing of the future interest on that and the unsustainable programs it will create.
The egoism of the few still creates jobs and realizes industrial opportunities, no matter what harms it is accused of. And the fact remains that the state is not capable of creating a net gain in wealth.
I think quite the opposite of your statement is true. The "beneficiaries" of the community are just as, if not more guilty than any corporate fat cat, and they can do much more harm.

I have said that several times in various postings to you now, Lance. It is not about the state taking decision command in making internal policies of private institutions........
My fear is that the state will ultimately reach that point, something that is happening here right now. Show me a state that has willingly surrendered more power than it has gained over any significant period of time, and I could see your point more clearly.

I have argued against the state governing all decision-making in economy often enough,I think, I do not argue in favour of a state-run economy. but we need better, tighter rules by which business must run, and we need an office monitoring that these rules are being followed, and these offices must be strong enough in ressources and power that they can do the job. The monitoring systems we have had so far have failed miserably both in the Us and Germany - in one aspect they did so last but not least because they based too much on the too unsolid standards of rating agencies, and trusted the market too much - for no good. the greater the chance that lies will be discorvered, the smaller the probabuiliuty that somebody will lie, and the smaller the overall number of acvtual lies indeed. Trust is kind. Control is MUCH better. When it comes to money, my trust in the good of man comes to a sudden end. people kill each other for ten dollars. what do you think people are willing to do for an income of ten million dollars? Laws and control are for making sure everybody behaves.

Laws are more dangerous than money, my friend. They carry the threat of violence more surely than any street thug, and certainly more than any bank. You say yourself that the previous regulations failed, so who makes the new ones? Do you have access to an altruistic body of competent lawmakers?
The market provides the control you seek better than the state ever could. The voice of every consumer is directly represented by their money and how they choose to spend it. If you start with basic, but strong, anti-fraud legislation and have even a moderately educated populace, industry is kept in check. It must produce and satisfy or it fails.
The state, even in the limited (but not enough;)) capacity you describe obfuscates the truth of the market. It plays havoc with the ratio of capital to products, it interferes with legitimate business operations as readily as illegal ones, it stifles competition as entrepeneurs wait months or years to get approved for this or that license and pay hefty fees to obtain them.

Too pervasive? It has to do the job, if communal interest of sufficient critical quality and quantity are at risk. Let it be as pervasive as needed to acchieve that. Salus Publica Suprema Lex.
Imo, it doesn't need to be very pervasive to achieve that. It needs only to punish the frauds that the market, the media, and the populace expose on an almost daily basis. What I would like to see, is some longer prison terms for blatant offenders. Keeps them off the market, so to speak.

The current legal situation says that while they behave unethical, they are legally correct. I do not accept that status.
So what do you do then? People run their businesses into the ground every day, to the detriment of their employees and investors. Should they be accountable as well? What's the threshold?
In any case, as much as I disapprove of the shameless actions of these people, they didn't intend to collapse their companies. I'll admit that the question of how to handle them is not one I have the answer to.
However, incompetents like them get into those positions (and stay there) because there is not enough competition. The boards of many companies can afford to use company assets to play the "inflate the stock" game because their companies have security in their position thanks to a web of state legal protections that keeps up-and-comers down. That's why businesses lobby so hard for the regulation of their own industries.




that is the classical mistake - to assume the wanted effect gets acchieved by arguing for higher penalties......

....Without such controls, and the ressources needed to maintain and guarantee them, such standards could be ignored too easily. Controls need to be pervasive to a certain degree, else they do not work.

I have no doubt that strong anti-fraud legislation would not solve the problem itself, but it would help to stick it to the bastards who get caught and would have a deterrant effect, nonethelss.

I might agree with the need for the controls you described if I believed that the state would not expand its' power further and could maintain some semblance of fiscal responsibility. Unfortunately, it never does.
The more responsibility you shift to the government, the more crooked businessmen become politicians instead.

There is a difference. It has been repeatedly argued, and even is admitted by American economists, that Germany with it'S much better social security web than America in a crisis like this by this major structural difference produces a higher economic request that helps to boost the economy to a certain degree, than it is the case in america. That's why the sh!t hits us with a delay. Of course it compensates to a certain degree only, and not beyond. Point is: free market economy is not the same like free market economy. Your American ultra-liberal market economy is different than our social market economy. what you Americans often mock us for - so far has worked to our advanatge in this crisis. It is an additonal stimulus automatic.
I'd have to know exactly what Germany's protocols for a situation like this were to offer an educated opinion, and I've devoted most of my time lately to studying the American Government.
However, it could be noted that amongst U.S. states, the ones with the most liberal economies have suffered the least. Something of a similar effect but it doesn't cost a penny and there is no overbearing state to eventually mess it up.

[UnderseaLcpl]

@ Lance, 2 of 2

[QUOTE]For me, the market format, including "free market", is not the goal, but only a tool to acchieve other goals. And that competition alone does not harnass man'S flaws, we just have seen. 2008 alone it costed us 38 trillion dollars that got burned - and that are just the known numbers. In capitalism, you have the never disapperaring trend towards monopolism, because the less competition there is, the more power you have, and the more you can enforce conditions that increase your profits. Capitalism leads to monopolism - and the destruction of "free markets".

And the state just skips the whole process and goes straight to monopolism. You can always legislate the break-up of a company, but how do you break up the state monopoly?
As far as the 38 trillion goes, most of that was fiat currency that didn't exsist in the first place, only in the ledgers of the Central Bank. It would have been good to lose that inflated currency, but the state is currently ensuring that we get it all back in their attempt to "fix" the economy.

I think you ignore, and I should have mentioned earlier, one major quality: scale, size. much of what you say, as well as the basic idea of democratic participation, works nice and well - as long as the community does not exceed a certain size. basic democracy.......

That's true, for democracy I guess. Fortunately, the market knows no limitations of scale or size and it does not need to. The proof is all around us. Billions of transactions every day determine the prices of goods and the rise and fall of companies. You can even watch it in real-time courtesy of stock-tickers and commodities values. Everyone votes, and all the votes matter.



maybe that is with regard to the thieve in your house. but leave anti-terror-strategies and military planning to your population and private people, and you are screwed.
I mentioned the freedom of private interests to puruse their own security affairs. That would include private security firms, which would be suited to those roles. Obviously the state still has a role to play, but private firms could perform certain jobs better, especially when company interests are at stake. Airport security would be a good of example of a role I believe they would perform better.


Even more helplessness you discover when considering this enormous white consumer's demand for drugs .......
......The DEA already fights a lost war here, and is outclassed in ressources and capabilities. How much more security do you hope to achieve by the freedom to carry arms?

I'd go a step further and remove state prohibition of drugs, but that's another discussion in itself isn't it? It is a good example of the failure of the state to perform adequately against the market, however, even when endowed with vast resources.

Or consider Islamic terrorism. A possible military threat - that currently there is none does not mean there enver will be any again. organised crime. Corruption of authorities. Lobbyism in legislation, damaging community interests for the sake of corporation interests. As I said above, private firms could have a role in combatting terrorism. Combatting crime is a state responsibility I recognize, though at a limited extent on the Federal level. Still, it helps to have a gun when threatened by a criminal, whether he is organized or not:DL
The last three there can be most effectively combatted by limiting state power. I have no doubt that the state will abuse any power it has to some extent, but limiting that power severely can also limit the damage they do.

This is not high Noon on Main Street and you do not establish law and order in Dodge City by walking down to the saloon with a colt in your hand and making a grim face.
I can't see all that being solved - or even adressed - by your remarks. i also see my claimed antagonism and polarity of freedom and security being present in all these examples. In the end it does not matter whether security is pushed by the state, or the private man. you want more security - you limit your freedoms and that of others. Want to raise these freedoms: not without going at the cost of reduced security. security always goes towards greater restriction, and freedom always goes towards lesser restriction. That's how it is.

I fail to see how using a firearm to defend oneself if attacked and the employ of a modern security firm fail to provide security without sacrificing liberty. I also fail to see the Dodge City comparison, but I assume you thought I was talking only about private gun ownership.

In the ideal case of the textbook democracy, the state and it'S representative is being held accountable, too - at the next elections at the latest. The nice thing about private firms is that you don't have to wait that long, and all the people concerned actually vote (with their purchases and investments)


Take the example of the economic crisis. national communities (tax-payers, employees), and national economies suffer severly, through no fault of their own, because the banking sector and financial market was entrusted with adminstering itself and regulating security protocols, and failed. Well, you already know how much of that I blame on the state. So in that way I see it as being the same as the 9/11 comparison. The fox is guarding the henhouse.


I have a principal issue with such insane payments in general. Let the span between the wages for the lowest w0rker and the top boss be something in the range of a factor of let's say 20. fine. But 800 bucks compared to 1 million bucks and more, and success boni when failing? sorry, the logic and reason that I use to use has no category to calculate this madness. I honestly thinks it cripples people's character. For whom enough is not enough, it will never be enou8gh, and he wants always more, and more, and more.
As I said in part 1 of this post, I think competition should help fix that. Nothing you can do about it without damaging incentive anyways. Why start a company here to make half a million a year when you could go somewhere else?

For the x-th time, i am not about the state running private business. This can only be an option in cases of banks that are so-called "system-relevant", whose fall would cause a whole rat-tail of collapses following in their wake, with the survival of the functioning of the state and the nation being at risk as a final result of that. This can be a nation-crushing chain reaction, the meltdown of the core, the absolute and total worst case event - and it must be prevented, no matter how, no matter the costs. I'm sorry if I have implied that you favor a state-run economy. My main point is that you will end up with one if the power of the state is not strictly limited. Even legislation as strong as the U.S. Constitution only weathered the advances of state for about 150 years.

It is about establishing new, tighter rules for greater safeguarding against the unintended failing or the intended egoism of the few, against fraud, and against prevention ofas much transparency as possible. And it is about the tools and offices to see these rules through and monitor that players play by these rules, and violators get identified as soon as possible and being held responsible - hopefully before they have spelled global desaster again.
This answer leaves me with the same question; What system do you use to do all this? How are these companies regulated? Who drafts the regulations? Who regulates the regulators? How is fiscal responsibility ensured? How do you stop the regulation from becoming invasive to the point of damaging competitive ability? What kind of taxes would be needed to pay for such a tremendous undertaking.
Imo, it has perpetually expanding state written all over it, leading to the harms you describe above.


And last but not least: it is about america learning to reasonably manage the balance between what it consumes - and what it can afford to consume and produce itself. This endless leasing of money and living on tick must end. It has been one of the most major reasons for the mess the global economy now is in. I repeatedly compared to the money-cheat in Sim City. Early versions had one cheat-code to enter, that gave you a certain ammount of money, but not more, it was no infinite (let'S ignore hex-editioing and such). You used the cheat, to be used once only, and started to build and to construct, and what a wonderful city you built! And then came the time when the money was gone, and no more reserve to pay for the running costs. Soon you realised that it all was just unsolid facade, not able to maintain itself, for your econonomy was not build on healthy principles, but was ignored, since oyu had money to pay with and thoiught you do not need to shape a healthy economy. You build more and established more city service than your economy could support. And now: things start to rot. Streets do not get repaired. Crime rate climbs, buildings turn into ruins, people move away, increasing the trend of the general fall. your match is ruoined, your nice city - was unable to last. Currently, and in the past, Obama and his predecessors just entered another of their money cheats. Still no reasonable managing of the economy, still spending more on construction than the economy could support for financial maintenance, still consuming more than one could afford. Now consider you have used up all available money cheats, there is no more.

This much we can agree on, although I will say that the biggest culprit is still the state. America doesn't have 12 trillion dollars in private debt that goes straight to the taxpayer and the inflation of currency. The companies that sustain the economy still make a profit. Even when they outsource factories and the like, they still own the factories and the revenue still comes here.
I do not believe in a sustainable system of economic prosperity for the entire globe in the forseeable future. Imo, the best policy for Western nations would be to relax restrictive economic policy and lure companies(not factories or whatever) back to our nations with business-friendly policy. Who cares where the factories are if we own everything? An auto worker can just as easily become a retail manager or work in some other non-exportable industry.
Then we transition from a service economy to a corporate economy, the next step up the ladder. Some say it wouldn't happen that way, but they forget the lessons of the industrial revolution and the computer age. For all the industry we have exported, America's GDP per capita has been on a steady rise since those times. Excepting the probable results of the current crisis, people live better now, and there are more of us, and we live longer.

Of course, all of this requires that the state keep its' over-taxing, over-regulating, over-spending nose out of business and not go wild with its' fiat money. That means limiting the state, whether in business or security or whatever.

We can have freedom, and security, and prosperity, but the state has proven time and time again that it cannot be the agent.

[Skybird]

@ Lance, 1 of 2


And the state just skips the whole process and goes straight to monopolism. You can always legislate the break-up of a company, but how do you break up the state monopoly?

Through elections and a legally binding system of checks and balances, that's what power regulation in a democracy is about. But try to vote a monopolistic corporation out of power - it does not work. Try to get riod of one of the "bosses" - many names plagueing German ecomy on my mind, and you cannot and cannot get rid of them and they still sit on their chairs and open the hands for more. In some cases this goes for many years now.

The state is a monopolist in certain areas, yes, and he has to be, else the idea of state and nation does not make any sense. For example the state in Europe is demanded to hold the monopole of the executive, and a monopole of force. It's the only way how the people can execute a legally guaranteed ammount of countercontrol over tools of such force, police for example. at least that'S how it should be. An economic enterprise having such powers essentiaolly would be oputside the checks and balances, and would try to keep it that way so that it can have it'S ways for the sake of it'S maximising of profits. Beyond a certain scale of such companies, market regulation does not affect them so much anymore - usually the more the more they reach their goal of establishing monopoles.

And where market regulation comes into play - I do not say that it never works - , eventually it may work too late and too slow, and only at the price of too much damage being done until then. Microsoft is a harmless example. Environment-related contexts may serve as less harmless examples. I am not satisfied to leave it to nrepair the damge once it has been done. I'm about preventing it so that the need for repairs falls to a minimum.

That's true, for democracy I guess. Fortunately, the market knows no limitations of scale or size and it does not need to. The proof is all around us. Billions of transactions every day determine the prices of goods and the rise and fall of companies. You can even watch it in real-time courtesy of stock-tickers and commodities values. Everyone votes, and all the votes matter.

The market needs limitations. The whole Anglosaxon idea of economic globalization has gone very wrong for those having the idea - us, europe and North America. We have lost the lead in technologies we once had. We have exported our jobs to other nations. Capital of companies avoid taxation in our countries, although our countries pay for their rise, and compensate for their eventual losses. Profits gets exported to outside places. Rivals got strengthened. Home economies got weakened. Next month there will be a new mammoth conference at the UN, demanding this madness to continue and making it even more mandatory for western nations to drive it. I'm sure that China again will get plenty of "developement aide", for it is economically so weak and depending on our help. :dead: . On the one hand it is said that we should have a competing economy. On the other hand we cripple ourselves. The last thing one could say is that this is a contradictory thing. But okay, it's the UN, so no surprise.

Hell, years ago I wouldn'T have imagined that I ever would turn so extremely hostile to the UN. Maybe we can agree on that!? :D


I mentioned the freedom of private interests to pursue their own security affairs. That would include private security firms, which would be suited to those roles. Obviously the state still has a role to play, but private firms could perform certain jobs better, especially when company interests are at stake. Airport security would be a good of example of a role I believe they would perform better.

Help-Help!! Please do not leave national and communal security interests to private economy. It will compromise them, and making the understanding of "security" an item of profit interests of private parties. Unacceptable. As unacceptable as the outsourcing of military capacities to private enterprise, in the form of mercenary corporations. We have had that in europe, over centuries. It did a lot to make wars lasting longer, happening more often, since a status of peace was ruinous for such companies. A conditions of relative security would be ruinous for security companies today, too. therefore, they would push, invent, redefine "threats", to secure their profits and make sure they always will be considered to be needed. The American defence industry already works that way very much, and tries to maike itself indispensable by spreading it's proleductions to a smany states as possible, so that in case of cuts jobs would be lost in many states - which would bring a lot of governors wanting to be reelected on the side of such companies.

You are talking about a pure element of plutocracy when giving up the state monopole for the executive, in parts or in full. If the idea of a "tyrannis" in ancient understanding is okay for you, fine, just remember that that form of government is neither free and liberal, nor democratic. If the tyrant you have (in ancient understandingk, which id different to that context in whhich we use the term tyranny today) is a good and reasonable one, you'Re fine, eventually. If he is not, you have a problem. The same problem you have with feudal systems and monarchies - and democracy, too (being elected does not say anything about your competence and character. Maybe you got elected becasue your rotten character helped you to make them vote for you).

So, as long as you want to defend the basic ideas behind why people came to the idea of a democracy, at least in theory, then you are on a wrong track. I said myself that I cannot imagine democracy working well in too huge communities, and that kind of a feudal order maybe works the better the bigger the community is. Problem is, for a feudal system you depend on good personnel forming the leading feudal class, and we do not have that, and it often worked erratic in past centuries. Like democracy depends on reasonable people and good personnel being electable, too - we suffer the same lack today. Both systems are answers to one and the same problem: how to secure that only "good" people lead the rest, and their irresponsibility or selfishness can do only limited damage? turning to a profit-driven plutocracy cannot be the answer. we already have that, especially in the US it is a few very rich family clans projecting an incredible ammount of power and influence over all the remaining political scene. It really is some kond of a hidden new feudal class, isn't it. In europe, that part is taken over by the parties, in Germany at least. the interests and powerplays of political parties today dominate all and everything, and if that goes at the damage of the nation and the German people - so be it.

I'd go a step further and remove state prohibition of drugs, but that's another discussion in itself isn't it? It is a good example of the failure of the state to perform adequately against the market, however, even when endowed with vast resources.

due to the socially and economically damaging effect of drugs, it would be suicidal to allow them. You would remove state prohibition. I would make a list with drugs, and brutally execute everybody consuming these, owning these, trading with them, no matter the quantities. the small street vrtrader, the big fish in the background: it does not matter, delete them both from the screen of communal influence. Exceptions i only would make with very young people, that follow the youth's drive to experiment. Nevertheless: only if they get caught for the first time, and even then I would give very, extremely harsh penalties, but not execution. All second-time offenders, as well as all older ones: if you have contact with drugs on this official ban-list, your existence will end. In SE Asia some nations practice "draconic" prison sentences, much more exessive than we do in the West. They have made quite some good experiences with it. If you reduce the number of people on the street having access to drugs, and being in contact with them, you increase the difficulty to get access to them. Execution I understand as a means of fighting drugs, not as a "death penalty" here. It neither is about penalty, nor about revenge, but about national and communal self-defence. After long time of thinking about it, I also have found my position on whether or not soft drugs should be legalised, and I came to a determined "No". While psychologically in single cases it may make sense, it opens a lane to acceptance for a drug culture, that in the end is self-damaging to the national community.

I am aware that my draconic suggestion generalises a bit and ignores the single individual cases where people sometime chnage their minds and get away from drugs again. This possibility has to be weighted against the enormous damage done to the community by the immense drug trafficking taking place, and the vital threat it puts to our nations. Since I do not take it easy to demand such a draconic action, I also cannot compromise communal interests to the suicidal levels we currently have. It is a hard call in both cases.

It is called "war" on drugs. Then start to behave accordingly: start to kill. Else the term does not make any sense at all.


Or consider Islamic terrorism. A possible military threat - that currently there is none does not mean there enver will be any again. organised crime. Corruption of authorities. Lobbyism in legislation, damaging community interests for the sake of corporation interests.

As I said above, private firms could have a role in combatting terrorism. Combatting crime is a state responsibility I recognize, though at a limited extent on the Federal level. Still, it helps to have a gun when threatened by a criminal, whether he is organized or not
The last three there can be most effectively combatted by limiting state power. I have no doubt that the state will abuse any power it has to some extent, but limiting that power severely can also limit the damage they do.

We do not come together in our different assessments here. It appears to me that here and in later parts I used the term "security" both in your understanding - and a wider context as well, surpassing yours.

[Skybird]

@ Lance, 2 of 2


The nice thing about private firms is that you don't have to wait that long, and all the people concerned actually vote (with their purchases and investments)

Tell that the big corporations, or any business that is not on very small family-level, or medium level (let's say less than 100 employees). I see them dancing around the laws, and eroding the laws by content. You can'T vote them out, and you can't tell them what to do. They tell you what you should buy and how you should live. Again I see you describing the idyll of small village communities - on that level, you would be right, like Newton is great for playing pool. On astrophysical and quantumphysical levels, you need other rules than that of Newtonian physics.

As I said in part 1 of this post, I think competition should help fix that. Nothing you can do about it without damaging incentive anyways. Why start a company here to make half a million a year when you could go somewhere else?

And I replied that capitalism has no interest in competition, but in establishing monopoles that make the business actor invulnerable, and denying others the option to compete. You have far too much trust in the self-regulation of the market, although it just has failed on monumental scale, and has worked for many years towards that logical outcome. This outcome - is no surprise at all. It was the only outcome possible.

This answer leaves me with the same question; What system do you use to do all this? How are these companies regulated? Who drafts the regulations? Who regulates the regulators? How is fiscal responsibility ensured? How do you stop the regulation from becoming invasive to the point of damaging competitive ability? What kind of taxes would be needed to pay for such a tremendous undertaking.
Imo, it has perpetually expanding state written all over it, leading to the harms you describe above.

I have answered that repeatedly now, as far as it could be answered. I said that although I am aware of the deformation of the democratic idea, I see no alternative to the state forming the legislative and being in control of the executive, and that under no circumstances I would leave any of these two to private enterprise with private selfish profit interests - you cannot have to create massive conflicts of interest by doing your way. On the individual form and shape of new laws and rules, i cannot answer in detail, that is a job for really indepth-experts and owners of insider-knowledge, so I leave it to pointing the general direction of where the trek must heading. But considering that the original spirit that our constitutions once were breathing, and considering that they were written down by people living in times of a challenging living environment, who went through harsh times we cannot imagine today, and considering that in past years and decades massive attempts have been undertaken to erode these rules and making them permeable, and considering that the ammount of laws we already have, with their plethora of appendices and appendices to the appendices and special rules and rules on exceptions from the rules, and the many self-maintaining lobby interests that live by keeping this labyrinth alive - I assume that a massive cleaning up and deletion of already existing laws would be a necessary part of it. for example, the german tax system is so complicated that experts say more than half of the world's literature about national tax laws is just about the German system. that you can hide perfectly in such a monster, that you can form your foxholes and hideouts, your evasion exits and cheating ways to fromally legally evade taxation, is clear, I think. And we know for sure that this is what is happening, on great scale.

So: we not only need new laws. We also need fewer laws, and a massive cleanup regarding already existing laws. Our states may be too compromised already to be seen as the most perfect authority to do so, but leaving it to private business is an even worse choice, since communal interests and private interests of the economy are natural antagonists. So the state is the lesser evil, still.

I do not believe in a sustainable system of economic prosperity for the entire globe in the forseeable future.

Neither do I. I believe that eventually a sustainable, enduring, balanced system of economy is possible - but not at that totally excessive level of living standards that we got used to take as granted, and only by leadership of a kind that we currently cannot even imagine to have, that acts not on the basis of craving for power and profit and ever-growing economy, but on the basis of reason and logic.

We live beyond our means, and very, very massively so. We must learn to live by less. Survival demands us to not take more from the pkanet than the plkanet can compensdate natureally, and ethics demand any part of mankind to not take more than any other part of mankind must live by. No matter whether you think we are toom many people on the globe, or material wealth is distributed too unfair - we in the West consume seveeral times too much. If all mankind would live by our living styles, then plnaet would die. and actually, it seem to head into a desaster big enough that it puts mankind'S survival into question. The planet will live on, in this form or any other. But man cannot say the same about himself. And this Science Fiction vision of getting ores and minerals from foriegn worlds - that is science fiction. One would be a fool to consider this vision a reasonable alternative to our current problems, evehn more so since even in this SF vision format, companies already try to monopolise theirt share in it - just in case "pessimists" like me are wrong and it all turns into reality nevertheless. But I personally give it a probablity of almost 0%. but I see a high probability that in a centuryor so, maybe even earlier - maybe we will not even be able to maintain a "space" program anymore. We fool ourselves if thinking we could ensure mankinds' survival in space in the forseeable future. But the forseeable future and it's vital threats are what we must deal with - and deal with NOW.
A good ammount of vulcan virtues, paired with some Roman and Prussian virtues, would come handy. Such a balanced economy I mentioned above can be reached then, but not by the forces of the market, nor by democratic populistic elections. Both procedures are flawed and prone to deformation. All ideas we have tried in our history, seem to be inadequate to adress the situation we are in today. We need something new.

Naive? Only if I would seriously believe that would come true. I just outline what in theory should happen. If I really think it will happen, is something different.
I think the chances for us falling, and disappearing, are much, much greater. the evolutionary concept of individualism seems to get it'S own problems if the technical intelligence of the individual grows beyond a certain quality level. seen that way we maybe are a blueprint that evolution already has thrown into the waste bin, like so many before. the sad thing is that in individual people you sometime see the qualities I called for. But they must become a racial characteristic of most of our species, not just a potential mark in some few individuals.

relax restrictive economic policy and lure companies(not factories or whatever) back to our nations with business-friendly policy. Who cares where the factories are if we own everything? An auto worker can just as easily become a retail manager or work in some other non-exportable industry.
Then we transition from a service economy to a corporate economy, the next step up the ladder. Some say it wouldn't happen that way, but they forget the lessons of the industrial revolution and the computer age. For all the industry we have exported, America's GDP per capita has been on a steady rise since those times. Excepting the probable results of the current crisis, people live better now, and there are more of us, and we live longer.

For my tatse you ignore too willingly the many shadow sides of what you described, but that is a discussion in itself, and this one already has become long. I leave it to saying that it is not as simple as you describe it in that paragraph.

Of course, all of this requires that the state keep its' over-taxing, over-regulating, over-spending nose out of business and not go wild with its' fiat money. That means limiting the state, whether in business or security or whatever.

We can have freedom, and security, and prosperity, but the state has proven time and time again that it cannot be the agent.

So has private economy. With it'S ever existing trend for monopolism, and it's profit interests often colliding head on with communal interests, you can't trust the market as well.

And to mention that at least once: Africa for example is full of examples - murderous, mass-killing examples - where it leads to when Western market elements are left to themselves to regulate the market. It's hell. We all live because we suck blood of people far away, and will war and mass dying on epic scales. Each of us in the West - is a killer, from the cradle on.

[jumpy]

A bit too much text to read there guys :oops: :O:

Suffice it to say, this government is a dick.
End transmission.

[Skybird]

A bit too much text to read there guys :oops: :O:

Consider it a pas de deux anyway. :D

[jumpy]

hehe :woot:

[UnderseaLcpl]

@ Lance, 1 of 2
Through elections and a legally binding system of checks and balances, that's what power regulation in a democracy is about.
And it is obviously working wonders. What have checks and balances done to properly administrate either of our governments? Do they both not overreach and expand their power every year? Why do you think everyone hates politicians? It's because they lie and work around the checks and balances system to push their own agendas.
Don't get me wrong, checks and balances are needed, but they work a lot better if the state's power is so limited and clearly defined that there is little to be gained from circumventing them.

But try to vote a monopolistic corporation out of power - it does not work. Try to get riod of one of the "bosses" - many names plagueing German ecomy on my mind, and you cannot and cannot get rid of them and they still sit on their chairs and open the hands for more. In some cases this goes for many years now.
What? Monopolistic corporations can be and have been voted away frequently, both by legislation and consumer choice. Just look at the U.S. auto industry, or AT&T before them, or Standard Oil, U.S. Steel, Pullman Railways, General Electric, IBM, etc. etc.
If the "bosses" of a company continue to keep their chairs it is either because enough consumers still want their products or because the state keeps them there. Perhaps the boards of these companies earn obscene wages, but it is a drop in the bucket compared to the wealth and jobs such ventures create. And if they fail utterly, as American Airlines did for example, it isn't the market that keeps them in their place, it's the state.

The state is a monopolist in certain areas, yes,
I'm not disagreeing with the fact that the state must have something of a monopoly on power, I'm saying we should be especially wary because of it. And even though the state must have some power monopolies, these can be diffused by reserving power to sub-states, amongst which the populace and industry are free to choose. The U.S. Constitution attempted to do this, but the total monopoly of the Federal state managed to find ways around it. At least it took them a long time.

An economic enterprise having such powers essentiaolly would be oputside the checks and balances, and would try to keep it that way so that it can have it'S ways for the sake of it'S maximising of profits. Beyond a certain scale of such companies, market regulation does not affect them so much anymore - usually the more the more they reach their goal of establishing monopoles.
Even if there ever had been a successful monopoly on any industry since the East India Company, they can be easily broken up by even a severely limited state with anti-trust powers, assuming they don't just piss everyone off and run themselves into the ground like AT&T or American Airlines.
The real danger is wealthy corporations buying state power to shut out competitors, something which has been done very frequently and is still rampant today.

And where market regulation comes into play - I do not say that it never works - , eventually it may work too late and too slow, and only at the price of too much damage being done until then.
I assume you're talking about self-regulation here. The market only very rarely works too slowly, and when it does, fraud is usually involved. Take the example of U.S. fuel prices. Within a week of the announcement of legislation being planned (not even written or enacted!) to tap domestic reserves, fuel prices dropped dramatically. All of the speculators dumped their fuel commodities in anticipation of a market glut. When Enron was exposed, the company fell to pieces in a heartbeat.
The power of the market comes from hundreds of millions of investors and consumers who react immediately to even the smallest change in the economy. It can be as simple as one housewife deciding not to buy a can of vegetables because the price has gone up(maybe because a CEO is doing something unscrupulous). That decision, multiplied over millions of consumers thinking the same thing, will make the product more affordable again. The producer must streamline or increase production or do something and do it fast or they lose money.
The state, in the same situation, interferes with this process. Agricultural subsidies or taxes artificially affect the prices based solely on the judgement of out-of-touch legislators. Perhaps they see the decline in the product's sales and rush to save the jobs of their constituents with subsidies. Now, rather than the industry being forced to become more efficient, it remains competitive to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars. Thousands upon thousands of hours of productivity out the window, doing nothing. But the harms of state do not stop there. That money has to come from somewhere, either in taxes, printing or loans. The former directly removes money from productive use, and the latter two inflate the currency, with the last also being victim to compound interest, resulting in even more inflation.
The market is a lot faster and more effective than the state in most cases. The state is better suited to penalizing fraud and enforcing limited anti-trust regulations.

Environment-related contexts may serve as less harmless examples. I am not satisfied to leave it to nrepair the damge once it has been done. I'm about preventing it so that the need for repairs falls to a minimum.
If there is one thing we will probably disagree on forever, this is it. I can respect your concern for the environment, and I do not have a be-all end-all argument against such concern. I was quite the environmentalist at one time, believe it or not:DL
However, I lean towards less environmental regulation because of what the state has done with it. Here in the U.S., the EPA is infamous for excessive regulation and even outright brutishness in some cases. The town of Aspen Colorado attracted their scrutiny a few decades back because it was once a mining area. They feared the soil was contaminated with lead, and wanted to declare the entire area as a "hazard-zone", which would destroy the town. In case you are not familiar with the town, it is a very wealthy community, so the citizens could afford lawyers to fight in court. Even then, it took 3 (or maybe five, I can't remember) years of court battles before the court finally permitted soil testing (which the EPA fought against). They found that Aspen had below-average lead content. Many other towns were not so fortunate as to be able to afford such costly legal battles, and no longer exsist.

On a more contemporary note, let's look at Global Warming, or climate change or whatever. The globe is cooler now than it has been on average. It has been ten thousand years since the last ice age (much longer than usual) We're also facing a purportedly impending swap of magnetic poles.
What purpose does economically-damaging "green" regulation serve in all this? It won't stop an ice age or a natural heating of the globe. It just wastes money that could be better spent in economic development, which in turn generates prosperity that affords us the luxury of dealing with such issues should they arise.

The market needs limitations. The whole Anglosaxon idea of economic globalization has gone very wrong for those having the idea - us, europe and North America. We have lost the lead in technologies we once had. We have exported our jobs to other nations. Capital of companies avoid taxation in our countries, although our countries pay for their rise, and compensate for their eventual losses. Profits gets exported to outside places. Rivals got strengthened. Home economies got weakened.
Only the state can be blamed for that. Let's start with WW1, a completely useless war that can only be blamed upon states (mostly England and France, imo) that resulted in WW2. WW2 destroyed what remained of the European empires. After that came the post-war Socialist movement, which generated the taxes you speak of, leading to mass outsourcing of industry. And did those taxes buy you a more prosperous or free society than free-market nations? Even Germany, Europe's centerpiece, only barely keeps pace with the Southeast Asian "Tigers", all of which have very free-market economies(and are nearly devoid of natural resources, I might add)
Once again, the fault lies with the state. What was supposed to be a responsible social-market economy became socialism, which is just a friendly word for "statist economy"
The U.S. has been slowly adopting the same path, and the consequences will manifest themselves soon, if they aren't apparent to you already.

I understand that you do not support such reckless statist policy, but that is what you get when you do not limit the power of the state very strictly. Even then, I have no doubt that the state will overcome its' limitations eventually. One can only forestall its' progress as long as possible before a foced reversal is necessary.


Next month there will be a new mammoth conference at the UN, demanding this madness to continue and making it even more mandatory for western nations to drive it. I'm sure that China again will get plenty of "developement aide", for it is economically so weak and depending on our help. :dead: . On the one hand it is said that we should have a competing economy. On the other hand we cripple ourselves. The last thing one could say is that this is a contradictory thing. But okay, it's the UN, so no surprise.

Hell, years ago I wouldn'T have imagined that I ever would turn so extremely hostile to the UN. Maybe we can agree on that!? :D

I share your hatred of the U.N. to some degree. More than anything, I hate that my nation is a part of it. I'd prefer an isolationist policy for the U.S., and I suspect most of the world would as well.
However, the U.N. is a good example of my point.
It is a state body, comprised of people who profess only their intentions to benefit humanity, that ultimately harms us all and absorbs power at the expense of the productive taxpayer. Of course, they do not intend to harm anyone. They just need a little more power to fix this or that. And when that fails, they just need a little more, and they will make it right.
It's a state power monopoly for the whole world, and it is only a matter of time before it becomes more appealing to greedy liars than business or national government.

Help-Help!! Please do not leave national and communal security interests to private economy. It will compromise them, and making the understanding of "security" an item of profit interests of private parties. Unacceptable. As unacceptable as the outsourcing of military capacities to private enterprise, in the form of mercenary corporations. We have had that in europe, over centuries. It did a lot to make wars lasting longer, happening more often, since a status of peace was ruinous for such companies. A conditions of relative security would be ruinous for security companies today, too. therefore, they would push, invent, redefine "threats", to secure their profits and make sure they always will be considered to be needed.

Now now, I said they could be useful in certain roles. Security roles are perfect for them because there will always be a need, and as long as state power is limited, they can't create markets where there are none. Who's gonna pay for it?
I also disagree with your assesment that mercenary corporations created or prolonged conflicts in Europe over the past centuries. I will give you ten examples of blatant state aggression for every one you can show me of unwarranted mercenary aggression, starting with Prussian feudal states.

The American defence industry already works that way very much, and tries to maike itself indispensable by spreading it's proleductions to a smany states as possible, so that in case of cuts jobs would be lost in many states - which would bring a lot of governors wanting to be reelected on the side of such companies.
Well now, if the state's power were limited, and they had less money, they wouldn't have the luxury of endorsing such contracts, would they?
What do you propose? A state arms industry? That's a monopoly without peer and it would produce inferior goods at inflated prices, not subject to market regulation. Even with a supposedly "competitive" bidding process, the state manages to contract for weapons that are not worth their ridiculous expense.
A private ancillary to the military would perform much better since it would have to remain profitable, and would raise the standards for the state military, lest it incur public outcry.

You are talking about a pure element of plutocracy when giving up the state monopole for the executive, in parts or in full. If the idea of a "tyrannis" in ancient understanding is okay for you, fine, just remember that that form of government is neither free and liberal, nor democratic. If the tyrant you have (in ancient understandingk, which id different to that context in whhich we use the term tyranny today) is a good and reasonable one, you'Re fine, eventually. If he is not, you have a problem. The same problem you have with feudal systems and monarchies - and democracy, too (being elected does not say anything about your competence and character. Maybe you got elected becasue your rotten character helped you to make them vote for you).
Oh-ho! It is not me who is supporting tyranny. The market is about choice. The limitation of the state is about choice. Was it not you who postulated that elections were part of the regulation of a democratic government? And now you say that being elected says nothing about one's competence or character? How then, can you trust the state with power? How can it be regulated? More on this in a moment....

So, as long as you want to defend the basic ideas behind why people came to the idea of a democracy, at least in theory, then you are on a wrong track. I said myself that I cannot imagine democracy working well in too huge communities, and that kind of a feudal order maybe works the better the bigger the community is. Problem is, for a feudal system you depend on good personnel forming the leading feudal class, and we do not have that, and it often worked erratic in past centuries. Like democracy depends on reasonable people and good personnel being electable, too - we suffer the same lack today. Both systems are answers to one and the same problem: how to secure that only "good" people lead the rest, and their irresponsibility or selfishness can do only limited damage? turning to a profit-driven plutocracy cannot be the answer. we already have that, especially in the US it is a few very rich family clans projecting an incredible ammount of power and influence over all the remaining political scene. It really is some kond of a hidden new feudal class, isn't it. In europe, that part is taken over by the parties, in Germany at least.
I do not recall ever defending democracy. Democracy is tyranny of the masses and is to be avoided. I only advocate the defense of personal freedoms to the maximum extent possible. I am in favor of a constitutional republic that severely limits the powers of state, as the U.S. once was.

Your assesment that a few powerful families project most of the power is also incorrect where the state does not apply. Whether it is the Rockefellers or the Kennedys or whoever, I have the freedom to choose whether or not I work for them or buy their products or believe their beliefs or listen to them at all. It is not some kind of neo-feudalism until the state gets involved, which it has. The state restricts choice, it forces politically correct behavior, it teaches its' own ideology through the state education system.

the interests and powerplays of political parties today dominate all and everything, and if that goes at the damage of the nation and the German people - so be it.
And I say; "To hell with that!" A million people looking out for their own interests but restrained from infringing upon the rights of others is better than one person overseeing the interests of a million. Why should Germany, or any nation, be subject the whims of the state? The modern state is supposed to serve and protect freedoms, not dictate them.
It isn't a hidden feudal class, it's the same damn class we've been seeing for millenia; *******s who take power for our own good!



due to the socially and economically damaging effect of drugs, it would be suicidal to allow them. You would remove state prohibition. I would make a list with drugs, and brutally execute everybody consuming these, owning these, trading with them, no matter the quantities. the small street vrtrader, the big fish in the background: it does not matter, delete them both from the screen of communal influence. Exceptions i only would make with very young people, that follow the youth's drive to experiment. Nevertheless: only if they get caught for the first time, and even then I would give very, extremely harsh penalties, but not execution. All second-time offenders, as well as all older ones: if you have contact with drugs on this official ban-list, your existence will end. In SE Asia some nations practice "draconic" prison sentences, much more exessive than we do in the West. They have made quite some good experiences with it. If you reduce the number of people on the street having access to drugs, and being in contact with them, you increase the difficulty to get access to them. Execution I understand as a means of fighting drugs, not as a "death penalty" here. It neither is about penalty, nor about revenge, but about national and communal self-defence. After long time of thinking about it, I also have found my position on whether or not soft drugs should be legalised, and I came to a determined "No". While psychologically in single cases it may make sense, it opens a lane to acceptance for a drug culture, that in the end is self-damaging to the national community.

Didn't I say that this was another discussion:DL? We can argue the point if you choose, but make another post or thread about it. I assume my walls of text are insufferable enough.

I am aware that my draconic suggestion generalises a bit and ignores the single individual cases where people sometime chnage their minds and get away from drugs again. This possibility has to be weighted against the enormous damage done to the community by the immense drug trafficking taking place, and the vital threat it puts to our nations. Since I do not take it easy to demand such a draconic action, I also cannot compromise communal interests to the suicidal levels we currently have. It is a hard call in both cases.

I think you mean to say "draconian", and yes, it generalizes and creates significant harms, to boot. But that's another discussion.

It is called "war" on drugs. Then start to behave accordingly: start to kill. Else the term does not make any sense at all.
You've never been to war, have you?



We do not come together in our different assessments here. It appears to me that here and in later parts I used the term "security" both in your understanding - and a wider context as well, surpassing yours.

I disagree. My context surpasses yours:O::DL
What harms has the state wrought? Hundreds of millions dead, tortured, imprisoned, oppressed, in this century alone, if not billions. Compare what those few examples of "malicious" private industry have accomplished in comparison.

[UnderseaLcpl]

@ Lance, 2 of 2

[QUOTE] Tell that the big corporations, or any business that is not on very small family-level, or medium level (let's say less than 100 employees). I see them dancing around the laws, and eroding the laws by content. You can'T vote them out, and you can't tell them what to do. They tell you what you should buy and how you should live. Again I see you describing the idyll of small village communities - on that level, you would be right, like Newton is great for playing pool. On astrophysical and quantumphysical levels, you need other rules than that of Newtonian physics.

Addressed in the previous post. These corporations do circumvent regulations and bend the state to their will. Best not to give the state power for them to manipulate.
Yes, you can vote them out. Perhaps not in one fell swoop, but in your own choice of products and those of others. It has been done, it is still being done, but the state has taken it upon itslef to interfere.

I would argue that it is you who is using Newton's laws upon a pool table. The complexities of the market are too vast and too incomprehensible for anyone or any state to govern entirely. Billions of people making many more billions of transactions every day for their own benefit. How do you regulate that beyond punishing fraud and breaking harmful monopolies? It is impossible, and even where you succeed, a black market will emerge, requiring additional resources. Argue the logical points all you like, history has already shown us what will happen.

And I replied that capitalism has no interest in competition, but in establishing monopoles that make the business actor invulnerable, and denying others the option to compete. You have far too much trust in the self-regulation of the market, although it just has failed on monumental scale, and has worked for many years towards that logical outcome. This outcome - is no surprise at all. It was the only outcome possible.

You have too much trust in the benevolence of the state, and history has shown such conclusions to be fallacious time and time again. If you insist upon using the current crisis as an example, and also reject my claims that the state was mostly responsible, just wait until you see the results of the state's actions. Private industry did not authorize the stimulus package, the state did. I'll bet you that the bailed-out companies continue to exsist, at taxpayer expense, whilst remaining unprofitable, for at least twenty years.

Even if we assume that the current crisis is not the fault of the state, despite the millions of pages of state financial regulations and the billions of dollars wasted upon using and interpreting them and the fact that the Federal institutions were the first to fail, there can be no more certain proof than what happens now that the state has taken "benevolent" measures which include the nationalization of banks.

You claim that private banks have failed on a monumental scale. Even if you don't believe that the excessive influences upon private banking were caused by regulation by the government and the central bank, just wait a few months and you'll see what true failure is.
Even in America's "ultra-liberal" economy, the harms of socialism will make themselves apparent almost immediately. Even in our supposedly freedom-driven state with all its' prmosies of self-determination and individual liberties, the state's benevolent (and not limited enough) power will make everything worse. Wait and see.




I have answered that repeatedly now, as far as it could be answered. I said that although I am aware of the deformation of the democratic ideal, I see no alternative to the state forming the legislative and being in control of the executive, ........ I assume that a massive cleaning up and deletion of already existing laws would be a necessary part of it.

I wholeheartedly agree. But I posit that the only way this can happen is if we limit the power of the state. There are too many vested interests in the preservation of this system, both form private and state interests, for a simple reformation of the system to be effective. Private and political interests will simply find a way to exploit the new system by using their time-honored traditions of creating panic or lying to exploit the system.
We must remove the incentive (power) for them to do so. Such an objective can only be achieved by limiting the power of the state.

for example, the german tax system is so complicated that experts say more than half of the world's literature about national tax laws is just about the German system. that you can hide perfectly in such a monster, that you can form your foxholes and hideouts, your evasion exits and cheating ways to fromally legally evade taxation, is clear, I think. And we know for sure that this is what is happening, on great scale.
Who's fault is that but the state? An entire wing of the Library of Congress is devoted to tax law. No small coincidence that most politicians are lawyers. They're just looking out for their own interests, and they have usually justified their actions to themselves. The answer is to curtail their legislative power.

So: we not only need new laws. We also need fewer laws, and a massive cleanup regarding already existing laws. Our states may be too compromised already to be seen as the most perfect authority to do so, but leaving it to private business is an even worse choice, since communal interests and private interests of the economy are natural antagonists. So the state is the lesser evil, still.

I wouldn't advocate having private business make laws. I only advocate a people's movement to preserve individual freedoms and limit the power of the state. In short, I'd like to see a re-imagination of the U.S. constitution, only with more restrictions on the state.



Neither do I. I believe that eventually a sustainable, enduring, balanced system of economy is possible - but not at that totally excessive level of living standards that we got used to take as granted, and only by leadership of a kind that we currently cannot even imagine to have, that acts not on the basis of craving for power and profit and ever-growing economy, but on the basis of reason and logic.
Given that virtually all of humanity is motivated by personal gain, I fail to see how reason and logic enter into this. The rule of history has been that the 90% labor for the benefit of the 10%. Unless we discover some remarkable source of cheap energy and mass, I daresay that this will continue to be the case.
My preference would be for the West to benefit at the expense of everyone else. Is it selfish? Yes. Who cares? The West has done more for global civilization than anyone else, ever. That is logic. That is efficiency.


We live beyond our means, and very, very massively so. We must learn to live by less. Survival demands us to not take more from the pkanet than the plkanet can compensdate natureally, and ethics demand any part of mankind to not take more than any other part of mankind must live by. No matter whether you think we are toom many people on the globe, or material wealth is distributed too unfair - we in the West consume seveeral times too much. If all mankind would live by our living styles, then plnaet would die. and actually, it seem to head into a desaster big enough that it puts mankind'S survival into question. The planet will live on, in this form or any other. But man cannot say the same about himself. And this Science Fiction vision of getting ores and minerals from foriegn worlds - that is science fiction. One would be a fool to consider this vision a reasonable alternative to our current problems, evehn more so since even in this SF vision format, companies already try to monopolise theirt share in it - just in case "pessimists" like me are wrong and it all turns into reality nevertheless. But I personally give it a probablity of almost 0%. but I see a high probability that in a centuryor so, maybe even earlier - maybe we will not even be able to maintain a "space" program anymore. We fool ourselves if thinking we could ensure mankinds' survival in space in the forseeable future. But the forseeable future and it's vital threats are what we must deal with - and deal with NOW.
A good ammount of vulcan virtues, paired with some Roman and Prussian virtues, would come handy. Such a balanced economy I mentioned above can be reached then, but not by the forces of the market, nor by democratic populistic elections. Both procedures are flawed and prone to deformation. All ideas we have tried in our history, seem to be inadequate to adress the situation we are in today. We need something new.

Naive? Only if I would seriously believe that would come true. I just outline what in theory should happen. If I really think it will happen, is something different.
I think the chances for us falling, and disappearing, are much, much greater. the evolutionary concept of individualism seems to get it'S own problems if the technical intelligence of the individual grows beyond a certain quality level. seen that way we maybe are a blueprint that evolution already has thrown into the waste bin, like so many before. the sad thing is that in individual people you sometime see the qualities I called for. But they must become a racial characteristic of most of our species, not just a potential mark in some few individuals.


I find you to be too optimistic, and too pessimistic at the same time. Too optimistic because you believe that we could live better by learning to live with less. How, exactly, are you going to bring that system about? It cannot be done. People would rebel. The pervasive power of the state required to enforce such a system would ruin the economy and collapse itself, even if private interests did not subvert it first. We have already seen this in the Soviet Union, to name one.
I find you to be too pessimistic in your belief that the best of humanity cannot be harnessed in a system that promotes personal gain. Capitalism strives and innovates, it creates jobs and wealth. It cannot be argued otherwise. The harm comes when the state intervenes.

For my taste you ignore too willingly the many shadow sides of what you described, but that is a discussion in itself, and this one already has become long. I leave it to saying that it is not as simple as you describe it in that paragraph.
And I will say that your assertions are not as simple as they seem. History is on my side, in this case. The state has always absorbed power to the detriment of the populace, no matter how well-intentioned it might be.
The shadow sides of capitalism have always been but shadows, whereas the harms of state have readily manifested themselves in wars, political slavery, and oppression.


So has private economy. With it'S ever existing trend for monopolism, and it's profit interests often colliding head on with communal interests, you can't trust the market as well.
Does the state not have profit interests? The state is made of people, all of whom have private interests. Why give them power to trade with?

And to mention that at least once: Africa for example is full of examples - murderous, mass-killing examples - where it leads to when Western market elements are left to themselves to regulate the market. It's hell. We all live because we suck blood of people far away, and will war and mass dying on epic scales. Each of us in the West - is a killer, from the cradle on.

Yes, let's look at Africa. How many governments in Africa are centralist? Before the arrival of western culture the whole damn continent was in the stone age. When the west removed itself, there was a spate of genocides and wars perpetrated by centralist governments.
Am I responsible for Africa's suffering? No. Buying goods from a state that exploits its' own people does not make that consumer responsible. The real responsibility lies with that state, and its' choice to oppress its' people. Will I relieve their troubles by not buying goods from them? History says no. In fact, it often causes greater despair. Cuba is a good example.


Your turn, Sky:DL

[Bewolf]

Not to get involved in this discussion too much, as I am neither pro government nor pro business..both must form a balance for the best benefit of all, not sticking to just capitalism or just communism/socialism for principles sake.

Anyways, Undersea, one sentence of yours I consider problematic:

My preference would be for the West to benefit at the expense of everyone else. Is it selfish? Yes. Who cares? The West has done more for global civilization than anyone else, ever. That is logic. That is efficiency.

First of all it is debateable that global civilisation is such a positive achievement. The final judgement of this I leave to others, but I'd not exactly take it as an example of positive development, given how much cultural backgrounds and languages it already destroyed, making the human civilisation as a whole in all it's facettes a lot more dull.

The other problem is your preference to benefit at the expense to others. Such a concept worked in the 19th century, when travelling from one part of the world to the other took weeks, if not months. Global civilisation is networked and connected to such a degree today that it's not longer individual nations far away from each other, but actually form a global community, with planes and weapons reaching far distances in the matter of hours and minutes. And I am sure you are aware what happens to those folks in a community that benefit on the expense of others in the long run. Look at the financial managers. They did benefit on the expense of others as well. Certainly not a means to gain international respect and morale authority, much more potent weapons in international affairs nowadays compared to a military that can't be used due to the threat of nuclear retaliation.

Also, once China/India or whatever countries gain the upper hand in global affairs, and that appears only a matter of time, they will take the west as an example and will start to live on "our" expense.
This global community needs to stick together. Too many ppl, too few ressources, too many potent weapons, that is a reciepe for tragedy. The world is changing fast and we can't keep up political and ideologic concepts born 300 years ago unless we invite self destruction.

[Skybird]

Obviously it needs time for me to write an asnwer to such lengthy posts, likme Lance needs time to answer to mine.

But for the time being I just want to say that it makes a nice change - at least in my pool of experiences at this board - to have such a basic discussion with so much disagreement and participants camping in so very different positions - and nevertheless the tone not turning personal and no name-calling and no personal attacks taking place and no verbal cheating being used.

My thanks and respect, Lance. :up:

[UnderseaLcpl]

My thanks and respect to you as well, Sky, but haven't our discussions always been pretty civil? I mean, when I'm not making chess blunders:DL



@Bewolf- that's kind of the discussion Sky and I are having right now. He defends responsible social market economics as a means of achieving the best balance for all,
and both of you are right in saying that a responsible market would be best. My position is that no agency, especially not the state, can effect such a policy.

[Bewolf]

Yeah, but you make it sound like it is some utopian dreaming, when in reality it is a simple, logical and urgent product of pure self preservation.

Else, in the foreseeable future, conditions will be very much worse then todays compromises might effect us, even if this does mean giving up valuable stuff. Going by human history such measures always came too late, if at all, be it the roman or british empire, ancient China or communist Russia.

I rather want the West to play a dominant and important role on the international stage even in the future, instead of an arrogant one for only at most 50 years from now.

You have to switch from Greed to cold blooded Intelligence here.

[Skybird]

You have to switch from Greed to cold blooded Intelligence here.

:DL I like the sound of it, it sounds so cool, so - Vulcan!

[UnderseaLcpl]

Yeah, but you make it sound like it is some utopian dreaming, when in reality it is a simple, logical and urgent product of pure self preservation.

Else, in the foreseeable future, conditions will be very much worse then todays compromises might effect us, even if this does mean giving up valuable stuff. Going by human history such measures always came too late, if at all, be it the roman or british empire, ancient China or communist Russia.

I rather want the West to play a dominant and important role on the international stage even in the future, instead of an arrogant one for only at most 50 years from now.

You have to switch from Greed to cold blooded Intelligence here.

What cold-blooded intelligence? It is one thing to claim that the state can solve problems through "simple" or "logical" measures, it is quite antoehr to actually make them do it. Who makes those rules? What should they be? How does one keep private interests or the state itself from taking advantage of them?
I'm not sure if I understand your second paragraph, it is worded oddly. I assume you mean those nations to be examples of illogical policy? If so, let's look at them. What was it that brought about the downfall of all those nations? It was greed. Not private greed. Not individual liberties, it was the greed of the state.
Ancient Rome fell because the excesses of state bankrupted it. And do not forget that it started as a Republic, and it remained prosperous until the state claimed more power, as it always does.
Soviet Russia is possibly the most extreme example, all freedoms and most personal properties given up and even then the state could not succeed.
How about England, once the ruler of the world, fueled by private trade interests, utterly destroyed by the state. You and Sky should know that better than anyone. It was England's fear of German economic dominance on the European continent that caused them to participate in the world wars. I'm sure both of you know that Germany never had any aspirations of invading England. The English knew that as well, but their state saw a threat to its' power, and in its' selfish attempt to preserve that power, England destroyed herself. Bankrupted like the Roman Empire.

Even today, you can see the same pattern. Europe was reinvented after the Second World War, and many nations chose social market economies.
Have those policies prevented European governments from amassing great debts? Have they bought them immunity from the market dominance of a nation made great by free-market policy? Does Europe not now suffer from the increasingly statist policy of the U.S.? Does not the whole world?

The real cold-blooded intelligence that must be employed is the science of greed. It cannot be overcome, it is human nature, right down to our very genes. Even if you or Sky or myself or anyone overcomes the sin of avarice, how could we create a truly (or even mostly) beneficial state? None of us are smart enough to create a failsafe net of regulation of anything, the state included, and to assume that we could would be sheer arrogance. No one is that smart. And where we fail, the powermongers slip in, and warp the policy of state to their own ends. It has always been so. The only answer is to limit the power of the state as much as possible and guard against it constantly. A weak state is attractive to business, which creates prosperity. Even when business is unscrupulous, it never subjects the populace to the harms that the state has, and will.

Avarice must be harnessed, as it cannot be fought. No matter how much wealth a CEO or board member pockets for himself, he still must pay his employees and attract consumers, or his enterprise dies. Even if he makes off with millions, another company must fill the gap. The state is not subject to such regulation. It steals wealth at gunpoint, uses it for its' own gain or uses it ineptly, and no one has any choice in the matter. Even when we do have choice, in the form of elections, the choice matters little. The state's agenda remains unchanged. It must maintain popular support, even though its' policies continually fail. To do that, it lies and decieves and obfuscates the truth. It legislates freedom of choice out of exsistence. It is a monopolist's dream.

Logic is not required to say that business should benefit the community or that the state should be responsible or any of that other stuff. But it takes real logic to see that greed is the driving force behind humanity and that it must be properly harnessed.

I believe that both you and Skybird would make excellent state administrators. The trouble is that you would not be electable, and if you were appointed, how does one select the appointer of the appointed?
Despite my limited intelligence, I could beat either of you in an election hands-down because I am an excellent liar. It isn't something I'm proud of, but it is people like me who should cause you to reconsider giving legislative power to the state.

I'm sure you have contentions which I have not addressed, and I'll be happy to consider them, should you choose to participate further.

[Bewolf]

National greed is the product of private greed. You can't differ between these two, one is the product of the other. Else you'd say that even in democracies the governments do not act in the interest of the population.

And you are right, nobody is intellgitent enough to create a failsafe. But humans also are no above failure in court, nevertheless you guys still use the death penalty. Not that this is a positive example at all, but when ppl think they have the right to sentence folks to death, then they surely have the right to control financial and economic corporations that have a proven record of pure self servitude on the expense of others.

If you say that greed is human nature and uncontrollable, then why did you have a problem with Germany invading Poland in WW2 and taking the lands to the east? All born out of excessive greed. Then again the US invaded Iraq for oil and strategic interests. Greed at work again.
Sure, this goes with human nature, but it produced even more violence. And the same applies to excessive greed in general. Don't harbor it and it will lead to destruction, as can also be seen in the excessive crisis we are in now. Wherever I look, greed causes huge problems, undermining the wests standing in the world and seriously threatening our position to influence world politics.

If you still insist on greed and human nature beeing acceptable basics to found a nation or even regulations upon, then I promise you this crisis will repeat itself, sometimess better, sometimes worse. And in a world that is more and more overpupulated and it's vast majority not sharing your views of acceptable greed, this will uninviteable lead to riots, revolutions, wars. And purely by numbers we simply can't compete with Asia in the long run. You are sacrificing long term national political influence for short term personal convinience that is bound to end anyways.

[UnderseaLcpl]

National greed is the product of private greed. You can't differ between these two, one is the product of the other. Else you'd say that even in democracies the governments do not act in the interest of the population.
That is precisely what I am saying. Any government, even a democracy, is dangerous. Its' power must be strictly limited and it must be very difficult for it to accquire more.

And you are right, nobody is intellgitent enough to create a failsafe. But humans also are no above failure in court, nevertheless you guys still use the death penalty. Not that this is a positive example at all, but when ppl think they have the right to sentence folks to death, then they surely have the right to control financial and economic corporations that have a proven record of pure self servitude on the expense of others.
And of course, I do not approve of the death penalty, either. I find it wasteful and heavy-handed, just like the state. I do not point to the United States as a model of success in anything other than free trade and Constitutional limitation of government, and even those leave much to be desired these days as the federal state encroaches ever further upon them.

If you say that greed is human nature and uncontrollable, then why did you have a problem with Germany invading Poland in WW2 and taking the lands to the east?
Other than the fact that WW2 was the single most devestating event in human history in terms of sheer scale? Not much. I was just using that as an example of how greed and power in the hands of the state can be so much more harmful than power reserved to the people.
My main problem is that the U.S. got involved, which it shouldn't have. Neither should Britain and France, but I digress.
All born out of excessive greed. Then again the US invaded Iraq for oil and strategic interests. Greed at work again.
It was the U.S. government that authorized that invasion. If we were isolationists like we used to be, we wouldn't have incurred the hatred of Islam in the first place, and there would be no need for us to be there at all.
Sure, this goes with human nature, but it produced even more violence. And the same applies to excessive greed in general. Don't harbor it and it will lead to destruction, as can also be seen in the excessive crisis we are in now. Wherever I look, greed causes huge problems, undermining the wests standing in the world and seriously threatening our position to influence world politics.
Greed only causes huge problems when the state wields it and the power to try to satiate it. Every major war is started by a state. Virtually all of them have very questionable motivations in doing so. Whether one solely blames the state or private interests influencing the state, the fact remains that the state's capacity for war and tyranny must be checked.
No business has ever undermined any nation in the West as much as its' states have.

If you still insist on greed and human nature beeing acceptable basics to found a nation or even regulations upon, then I promise you this crisis will repeat itself, sometimess better, sometimes worse. And in a world that is more and more overpupulated and it's vast majority not sharing your views of acceptable greed, this will inviteably lead to riots, revolutions, wars. And purely by numbers we simply can't compete with Asia in the long run. You are sacrificing long term national political influence for short term personal convinience that is bound to end anyways.

The problem is that selfishness is a part of human nature and it will seek to take advantage of whatever system it is in. Selfishness and power is a disastrous combination. Of course, private interests can wield power, and can influence the power of the state as well. But people have a choice when it comes to business, as consumers and as employees. The solution, quite simply, is to limit the state's power, so when it is inevitably taken advantage of, there can't be much harm.
What alternative do you see? You can't force people to think a certain way. There is no solution to overpopulation other than to let nature take its' course. Asia, or any up and coming region can still be beaten on the economic battlefield, if only we would relax the state's vice-grip on the private sector.

I apologize if I reiterate somewhat, it's a bad habit. But please, tell me what system you think would work better.

[Bewolf]

Without me going into this debate again, and we already are turning in circles here, as I would have to put up the same arguments I stated before to answer your post, let's come to the point.

You trust business, I do not.

You mistrust the state, so do I.

I mistrust both government and business. But when I am asked whom to distrust more, then it is the business by a long shot. The government has to answer to the ppl. Busnenss does not. As such, business is by mere logic more dangerous to the well beeing of the ppl, as their actions influence a nations well beeing even more then government actions when it comes to daily basis routines.

Maybe we come to a closer understanding when I replace business with "big" business.

Greed is human nature, I wholeheartly agree to you in this.
But so is revenge, hatred, the urge to kill, stealing is a direct result of greed. Still, these parts of human nature are bound up by law, too. As such harboring greed to civilized levels can be a strengh, but limitless acceptace of greed leads to the same problems caused by limitless nationalism, limitless alcoholism, limitless wasting, the list is endless. You always have to act within healthy boundaries.
I do not see a problem in limiting the excesses caused by geed.

[Skybird]

I am tempted to copy Bewolf's above posting as my own reply to you, Lance, since the texts we exchange already are very long and I have adressed in mycurrent draft only three paragraphs of your last letter to me, and still have an intimidating lot of text to answer to. But yesterday night I too got the feeling that we have started to just repeat ourselves. What Bewolf says about trust, politics and business, are my words as well, his whole last posting is. Maybe I fire up tonight what I have answered so far. It is nice weather here, first bike tours are inviting me, and currently I do not feel like typing texts for hours. :D

[UnderseaLcpl]

@Bewolf and Sky-

I do not wish to drag either of you into this discussion further if it has become tedious. This will be my last argument unless you desire further response. I will try to keep it brief, and of course, I will read anything else you present.


You trust business, I do not.
You mistrust the state, so do I.


I'm glad to see that you mistrust the state, a wise citizen should. However, I do not trust business. I only place my faith in the fact that with business I have more choice, and I fear the state much more, for reasons I have already stated.

While I do not disagree with either of you on the benefits of a more conscientious society, I do not see such a thing as being enforceable without giving the state too much power ( and incidentally, making that power malleable to sufficiently moneyed private interests)

That being said, I have tried to consider both of your arguments as objectively as possible. I have tried to see things from your point of view.
I found it difficult, but I have finally arrived at the conclusion that I might have more faith in the state and in the electorate if the U.S. had more real political parties, like Germany does, instead of a winner-takes all system. I'm all about competition yielding the best results,(usually) and I think that more competition in the U.S. Federal state could make it a better agency without surrendering too much regulatory power.

Thanks to both of you for taking the time to present your views so clearly and politely. If there is anything else you wish to add, I'll be happy to hear it. The more we talk, the more I think that our ideals are the same, even if we disagree upon the means.

[Bewolf]

Wonderful reply, Undersea, one I can more then live with. And yes, expiriences with our respectiv4 governments may be the biggest difference in our views on the systems. Given the american system and the history involved I do not wonder about your mistrust.

Over here the biggest problem is not to fall asleep watching the daily soap opera of talk and talk and more talk and maybe sometimes here and there a little bit of action.

[NeonSamurai]

One comment I would like to add is what i consider the root cause behind governmental corruption. That would be the capitalist (which means a person with alot of money or capital) groups/corporations. They are the principal group that leads government astray: they fund the political campaings, they do the bribing to gain what they want, they have a large hand in many of the wars (and make insane profits from war), etc. History is plastered with examples of this going back to the oldest empires.

Corporations in particular are worrysome creations, when operating in environments that lack regulations you end up with events like the Union Carbide disaster, virtual slave labor (the wage slave, a person who labors for no gain, everything they make goes back into the company, often through the company store and company lodging). Corporations have almost zero accountability with in, they are litteraly multi headed hydras which can pass the buck internaly forever (its not the ceo's fault its the junior executives, or the board, or the share holders etc). Being muti headed they also lack a moral compass as their sole purpose for existance is to make the share holders money regardless of the costs to the surroundings. Historicly they have never given a damn about anything. Before unions they use to pay their workers near starvation wages, basicly the lowest wages they could get away with and still have a workforce. Their attitude to the environment and local concerns have been equaly brutal and destructive. I can cite thousands of examples of what happens if corporations are alowed to operate with out regulation.

Last the population has little chance of controling corporations by boycots, etc. First off the company has to behave in such an agregious manner that the entire population takes notice of it. This pretty much never happens (look at walmart for example and how destructive it is to non city sized communities. we all have heard what wallmart does, but we havent done a thing to stop it). Even if the population notices, there may not be much that can be done, most large corporations are transglobal, they also may have a lock on the local situation through practices such as price fixing (I often wonder how many of these corporations are infact controled by the same interest group in secret through holding companies). On top of it the populace has been heavily brainwashed by advertising to belive we need all this crap *coughapplecough*, spend spend spend.

Anyhow in short I think we should be far more worried about the money men and their controling interests. Unfortunatly they pretty much have control over everything, buisness and government. As was said, greed like all our other baser instincts need to be controlled one way or another (and it can be controled just like lust and other strong instincts are). If we dont soon we are heading to a major collapse as has happend through out history, though this time we may take out the rest planet along with our species.

[UnderseaLcpl]

And yet another well-presented argument! It must be my lucky day.:DL


A pleasure to have you weigh in, NS. I know I said I was more or less finished discussing this matter but I'd like to point out that all the harms you present could also be applied to the state, only moreso.
Allow me to elaborate; It seems to me that you are well-aware of the dangers of a monopoly, and of an entity that is not held accountable for its' actions. True enough, corporations can fall into these categories.

In one of my previous posts, I mentioned several monopolistic corporations that were broken up, either by reasonable anti-trust legislation or simple lack of consumer demand because of their shoddy business practices. Limited anti-trust legislation is a power I am willing to concede to the state(although I would prefer that it be the responsibility of State governments rather than the Federal).
Breaking up the state, should it abuse its' monopoly on power, would require a great deal more egregious behavior and would most likely end in violence.
Also, you have a valid point in bringing up the harm a monopolistic corporation can have on its' employees. I support the idea of a reasonable minimum wage (gasp!), and the empowerment of a state agency to recieve and address complaints by employees and customers. I draw the line at invasive regulatory practices like those practiced by OSHA.
However, I feel that the best form of regulation is the freedom employees have to work elsewhere. Obviously, this freedom is most effective in a healthy economy, with many businesses competing for employees, which requires an environment that is as conducive to business as possible.

You mention Wal-Mart as an example of big business being harmful. I do not see it this way. Though the thought of small businesses powering the economy is attractive, the fact of the matter is that large business operates more efficiently. People shop there because it is better than locally-owned or small business alternatives. It is cheaper and more convenient. On top of that, it also provides more jobs.

Imo, a state strictly limited by enumerated constitutional powers that it is not allowed to exceed would not only eliminate the dangers of state, but drastically reduce the danger of corroboration between business and the state. Just like the U.S. Constitution, only stronger, with much more regulation of the state.
In the case of the U.S., any state should still be free to choose a more state-regulated economic policy, if it so desires. This prevents power from being monopolized and abused by the central government, whilst permitting citizens to have some measure of democratic control over their government. If a state is under or over-regulated, one can always move elsewhere.

If there is one thing I think we could all agree on, it is the importance of choice in any societal system. None of us, nor anyone else, could ever design a perfect system. The most anyone could do is to ensure that everyone has the freedom to choose and is prepared as well as possible to make those choices. As I said, it is my opinion that the best way to effect such a system is to create the most conducive business environment possible, whilst limiting concentration of state power for either the state or private interests to abuse.

One final addendum; I do not include the welfare of non-western nations in this little assesment. It is my experience that in a world of limited resources, someone will always suffer at the expense of someone else.

[Skybird]

I would like to point attention to this indepth analysis of the current (conflict-heavy) status quo from which the current G20-summit has to start.

Not encouraging.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-616269,00.html

and a short collection of brief comments by economists:

http://www.spiegel.de/fotostrecke/fotostrecke-41142.html

[NeonSamurai]

Yes indeed a pleasure as always :DL, Apologies for coming in late like this but I hadn't had time until now. I'll try not to drag it on to much more :)

I don't disagree with you on the state being a problem, but I do believe that its the money men behind everything that are the real problem. Before I head to business I want to touch on the concepts of state first.

I don't disagree with the need for strong checks and balances for the governmental system, but I'm not sure it would be enough to stop the corruption (It seems able to worm its way into any system)

The biggest problem with most forms of modern governance is the lack of true accountability and transparency. This is especially problematic on the large scale as all the forms we use tend to work best at very small scale (populations of a few thousand). At the small scale (say the greek city states) its very difficult for corruption to form, for one thing the difference in wealth in the populace would be much smaller, second its much harder to conceal corruption, and third its much easier to remove problem people from the system of governance. But the larger it gets the less and less the above works.

Unfortunately I can't think of a way of disentangling corruption from large countries as almost everyone is vulnerable to being corrupted and the big money people will always be there corrupting and manipulating things to their gain. I do generally agree that the state should not have too much control over the populace. But someone needs to keep the money making machine in check or it will run rough shod over us.

Perhaps the best (and most extreme) example of what happens when business runs with out any restriction would be Victorian England at the height of the Industrial Revolution. At this time period, business was running completely out of control. Conditions for the workers was unimaginably bad both at work and at home. Disease and pollution was rampant, injury and death common place, and there were regular periods of no work lasting years. Basically the industry worked on a cyclical base, the industry would start up, demand for workers would be high, wages would be high (relatively, most wages were barely above subsistence levels during this period), and the industries would be pumping out as many goods as possible. Over time this would slow down as the industry flooded all the markets with goods, prices would drop with demand, and wages would fall below starvation levels before the industry closed its doors. People would rapidly run out of money and starve to death, the population would drop dramatically, and then when the goods were finally consumed a year or 2 later the cycle would start over again. The industrialists were literally making themselves incredibly wealthy by working their workers to death and exploiting every little bit they could get out of their workers (some of the most unscrupulous companies payed workers company money that was only good at the company store where the prices were heavily inflated).

Now Walmart... Yes Walmart is more efficient, so efficient that no small or medium business can even hope to compete with them. This is exactly why they are so destructive, because they set up, kill virtually all the local businesses and force most of those people to work at Walmart for minimum wage. They also don't tend offer more jobs (it takes less workforce to operate 1 giant store then 20-30 small stores) and the jobs they do offer are much lower paying then before (particularly since they refuse to allow unions and use all kinds of dirty and hardly legal tricks to do it including even closing the store in question). They are also notorious for sucking all the wealth out of smaller communities then closing shop and pulling out. The lowest prices are not always a good thing.

Back to corporations, the biggest problem with them is they lack any form of a moral center. They lack it because there is no ultimate person who is responsible for things, and so they can pass the moral buck around. The ability to excuse ones actions by being "unaccountable" has lead to some of the worst examples of humanity, including genocide, as the people who did the actual killing could say that they were only following orders. It's this sort of thing that enables large corporations to do all the horrible things they do, not because the people inside them are inherently evil but because those people are not directly connected and responsible for anything.

My main concerns are that business needs to be regulated to prevent monopolies, price fixing and other unfair business practices. And they must offer fair wages, and prevent destructive practices (environmental and community related and being overly greedy). Last they must offer safe work environments without long term long term harm to the employee.

Personally I would prefer fair governance and fair business practices. It would be nice if some day we could get beyond exploiting each other. Shame it is almost certain never to happen with our species.

[Skybird]

Another interesting on the G20 summit, an interview with Jospeh Stiglitz (Nobel for economy).

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,druck-616743,00.html


SPIEGEL: The leaders of the 20 largest industrial nations are meeting in London this week to discuss the regulation of financial markets. Will the meeting be successful?

Stiglitz: I'm skeptical. The American government does talk a lot about stricter regulation of financial markets. I doubt that it's serious, though. The Americans have always been masters at changing a supposed regulation measure into further deregulation.

SPIEGEL: Do you expect this of the new Obama administration as well?

Stiglitz: Obama himself has made clear in many speeches that he wants to prevent prospecting in the American financial industry. But Obama is under pressure from Wall Street. Even within his own administration, there are a lot of officials who are only for cosmetic corrections.

SPIEGEL: The US is against too much regulation in the financial markets, Germany and Japan would prefer no further economic stimulus packages. Can much come out of the G20 summit?

Stiglitz: The governments will find the words to put a positive spin on the conference. If they can do anything, they can do that. Everyone will say that more regulation is necessary and that balance is needed between national sovereignty and common action in a globalized world. But how much substance will lie behind their words? I'm skeptical.

SPIEGEL: The economic crisis has severely damaged the economic model of finance-driven turbo-capitalism. Will this lead to a renaissance in the state economy?

Stiglitz: I don't think so. The fall of the Berlin Wall really was a strong message that communism does not work as an economic system. The collapse of Lehman Brothers on September 15th again showed that unbridled capitalism doesn't work either.

SPIEGEL: Could authoritarian systems like in China be the future?

Stiglitz: Besides the two extremes of communism and capitalism, there are alternatives, such as Scandinavia or Germany. The Chinese model has succeeded very well for their people, but at the price of democratic rights. The German social model, however, has worked very well. It could also be a model for the US administration.

[jumpy]

Well, we are here...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/5105519/Internet-records-to-be-stored-for-a-year.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7985339.stm

:down:

Nice country I'm living in. As quoted from another web forum... 'bring on the FUD' :nope:

So, my fellow britishers, better watch what you say around here from now on, 'cause it's not just the even handed subsim mods who will be tactfully dealing with your occasional ranting, now the Ministry of Freedom™ will be keeping an eye on your open sedition, should it choose to see it that way.

The beeb says the following: Please note, in an earlier version of this story we incorrectly stated that ISPs would be storing details of website visits. This is not the case.However the telegraph makes no mention of this.

Ah well :yawn:

[Skybird]

I think it is not exclusively British, but a EU-proposal, jumpy.

[jumpy]

indeed it is Skybird... 'which Britain was instrumental in devising' :hmmm:

*cough* er sorry guys, as a representative of Britain here at subsim, I wholeheartedly apologise for the actions of my idiot government and any snooping through your personal stuff (emil, browsing habits, phonecalls/skype etc) that this pernicious EU directive may cause.

never mind eh? I've just downloaded that enigma simulator thing again, might raise a few eyebrows if anyone is bothered to look at my email hehe

[kiwi_2005]

Microsoft are bad for this. When they say no private info is recorded DONT YOU BELIEVE IT!!! On my Win XP machine im always getting the genuine activation download even though i have a clean non pirate OEM OS they still ask for clearance every couple of weeks! And guess what it goes through without any hitch then they automatically send me to their site where there they thank you for using a geniune copy of their windows and offer products for geniune users only. Only for a few weeks later their it is again the genuine activation download i must install and have to repeat the same CRAP. If i refuse to install it i get a warning my windows will not work so i install/ it goes through its check and like magic MS thanks me for using a genuine copy.

This never use to happen before ive used this OEM xp for years but recently i reformatted and reinstall Windows & now i dont stop getting this activation crap. They keep asking me install the geniune code! And like i said it comes out 100% geniune I even get a thankyou but they keep asking me few days later!!! Driving me insane. Stuff MS! Friggin free software Linux Ubuntu I hope linux one day makes MS fall from grace forever! I hate MS:down:

There's only one fix for this retarded MS problem crack the damn genuine so they will stop asking me & turn off windows updates. Funny i am using a geniune copy yet i have to use a fix so they will pi$$ off.

[jumpy]

I'm sure I get the same thing on my Retail box for XP PRO, every time there's an update to the OS you get the GA tool as well which requires certifying each time you update before you get the other updates - without the genuine advantage tool not only will your system cease to function after 30 days, it will not allow you to download updates/service patches without it. Way to go M$.
I suspect I'll have to go open source os eventually if I a) don't want to pay through the nose everytime they discover a security loophole in their code, b) I wasnt to retain a little privacy and choice about what I have on my machine.

You hear about that 'cloud' os idea? where everything like your programs is stored in a remote data centre and all you do is access your programs/data from your mobile device... I don't think so.

[danlisa]

Hmm, I guess I'm lucky in that respect. I have a Corporate Edition of XP Pro which, by design, does not require the Genuine Advantage checks for updates & Service packs.

While I agree with you about how draconian M$ are, I have to ask why you even worry about the updates etc. Lets be honest, if you have adequate 3rd party protection on your system then all the 'holes' that M$ leave in the OS are protected anyway. Then after that, if you are so keen to get the latest service packs from M$, just apply for a free copy on disc (which does not require WGA).

What currently worries me more is the time extension on ISP's holding your Internet & VOIP data. This has just been extended to 12 months from the previous 6. That in itself is not too much of an issue, what does concern me is that (in the UK at least) your information is available to mid-level local authority/council workers at the signing of a form. They need no reason other than 'they want to view it'. Why should those runts have access to your contacts etc. My only assessment of this is that it can be used for marketing etc. Bottom line - it pi$$es me off that these regulations get passed on the basis that our national security depends on it and then we find out that some spotty council nerd can monitor your internet & voip usage with no just cause.:shifty: