the future long term financial apocalypse of the USA

[Lynn McGuire]

For those who are interested in the future long term financial
apocalypse of the USA, I recommend reading “The Mandibles: A Family,
2029-2047” by Lionel Shriver:

https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/

For those who do not like Lionel Shriver, I recommend “Distraction" by
Bruce Sterling:
https://www.amazon.com/Distraction-Bruce-Sterling/dp/1857989287/

For those who just want a short term financial apocalypse of the USA, I
recommend “Buck Out” by Ken Benton:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1514666979/

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>apocalypse of the USA

More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>> apocalypse of the USA
>
> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.

Yup, just like reality.

USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I
wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.
That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a
hit man instead, much cheaper.

Supposedly Social Security and Medicare are going to hit $2 trillion /
year each in 2030. That is an incredible amount of money.

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>
>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>
>Yup, just like reality.
>
>USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I
>wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.
>That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a
>hit man instead, much cheaper.

Talk to congress, they've had plenty of warnings and decades to
alleviate the problem, but the fucking unelected grover norquist
has screwed us all.

Corporations, who benefit from stable employees, should be
contributing to SS. They should (as per Warren Buffet)
be paying their fair share, rather than leaching off the
American public.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/10/2024 4:02 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>> On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>
>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>
>> Yup, just like reality.
>>
>> USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I
>> wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.
>> That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a
>> hit man instead, much cheaper.
>
> Talk to congress, they've had plenty of warnings and decades to
> alleviate the problem, but the fucking unelected grover norquist
> has screwed us all.
>
> Corporations, who benefit from stable employees, should be
> contributing to SS. They should (as per Warren Buffet)
> be paying their fair share, rather than leaching off the
> American public.

Um, I send quite a bit of money to the IRS for each paycheck (actually I
tell them how much and they grab it from the corporate checking account)
for my main business, a corporation, twice per month. So I do not
understand your complaint about corporations not contributing to SS. It
is not an optional tax, nor is it based on your profitability.

BTW, if your corporation does not pay the SS/Medicare tax then that tax
follows the officers of the company personally. Many people have found
this out to their dismay.

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:02:21 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>
>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>
>>Yup, just like reality.
>>
>>USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I
>>wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.
>>That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a
>>hit man instead, much cheaper.
>
>Talk to congress, they've had plenty of warnings and decades to
>alleviate the problem, but the fucking unelected grover norquist
>has screwed us all.
>
>Corporations, who benefit from stable employees, should be
>contributing to SS. They should (as per Warren Buffet)
>be paying their fair share, rather than leaching off the
>American public.

As others have pointed, they are. And, if this one or that one isn't,
it's going find itself in deep kimshee.

OTOH, requiring them to determine what they would be paying their
robotic workers if they were replaced by humans and paying payroll
taxes on /that/ might be one way of funding Social Security and
Medicare [1]. And ... adjust ... the cost/benefit analysis of
replacing humans with robots a bit.

[1] If they are already doing this, feel free to tell me. If this is
not practical politically, I agree. Have a nice day.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[Scott Lurndal]

Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:02:21 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>wrote:
>
>>Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>>=20
>>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>>
>>>Yup, just like reality.
>>>
>>>USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I=20
>>>wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.=20
>>>That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send =
>a=20
>>>hit man instead, much cheaper.
>>
>>Talk to congress, they've had plenty of warnings and decades to
>>alleviate the problem, but the fucking unelected grover norquist
>>has screwed us all.
>>
>>Corporations, who benefit from stable employees, should be
>>contributing to SS. They should (as per Warren Buffet)
>>be paying their fair share, rather than leaching off the
>>American public.
>
>As others have pointed, they are.

As far as their half of the ssi insurance, that's true.

As far as the part that would otherwise have been covered
by a traditional pension, not so much. And the lack of
pensions is a reason that many need to tap SS early.

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 11 May 2024 22:37:33 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

>Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> writes:
>>On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:02:21 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>>>=20
>>>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>>>
>>>>Yup, just like reality.
>>>>
>>>>USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I=20
>>>>wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.=20
>>>>That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send =
>>a=20
>>>>hit man instead, much cheaper.
>>>
>>>Talk to congress, they've had plenty of warnings and decades to
>>>alleviate the problem, but the fucking unelected grover norquist
>>>has screwed us all.
>>>
>>>Corporations, who benefit from stable employees, should be
>>>contributing to SS. They should (as per Warren Buffet)
>>>be paying their fair share, rather than leaching off the
>>>American public.
>>
>>As others have pointed, they are.
>
>As far as their half of the ssi insurance, that's true.

SSI and Medicare.

>As far as the part that would otherwise have been covered
>by a traditional pension, not so much. And the lack of
>pensions is a reason that many need to tap SS early.

That's what the IRA was invented for. And the 401(k).

But you have to have more income than expenses to be able to save
money. So the problem shoots right back from the gummint to the
1%-ers.

As to Social Security problem: AFAIK, the basic problem is that
Congress had, for decades, borrowed from the Social Security funds to
minimize their deficits [1]. Both parties did this. Now the time has
come to /pay the money back/, and they don't want to. The Republicans
don't want to because it would mean raising the Income Tax rates. The
Democrats don't want to because they can always find a better use for
the money raised than boring goal of funding Social Security. At last!
Bipartisanship!

[1] Yes, it is my understanding that, bloated as it is, the National
Debt is less than it would be had Social Security's funds not been
used to avoid the political consequences of keeping the
deficits/National Debt down. Paying the money back may well amount to
simply converting the SSA deficit into an increase in the National
Debt. Some solution is needed, because old people /vote/ and their
children, who will have to support their parents just as they do their
children (the traditional pattern, BTW) also /vote/ and neither group
is going to be happy with reductions. Not even the semi-fascist
ultra-MAGA types.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[Cryptoengineer]

On 5/11/2024 12:00 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:02:21 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
> wrote:
>
>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>> On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>>
>>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>>
>>> Yup, just like reality.
>>>
>>> USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I
>>> wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.
>>> That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a
>>> hit man instead, much cheaper.
>>
>> Talk to congress, they've had plenty of warnings and decades to
>> alleviate the problem, but the fucking unelected grover norquist
>> has screwed us all.
>>
>> Corporations, who benefit from stable employees, should be
>> contributing to SS. They should (as per Warren Buffet)
>> be paying their fair share, rather than leaching off the
>> American public.
>
> As others have pointed, they are. And, if this one or that one isn't,
> it's going find itself in deep kimshee.
>
> OTOH, requiring them to determine what they would be paying their
> robotic workers if they were replaced by humans and paying payroll
> taxes on /that/ might be one way of funding Social Security and
> Medicare [1]. And ... adjust ... the cost/benefit analysis of
> replacing humans with robots a bit.
>
> [1] If they are already doing this, feel free to tell me. If this is
> not practical politically, I agree. Have a nice day.

What's a 'robot worker'? Replacement usually isn't going to be firing
a human, and putting a humanoid robot in his/her place. How many humans
did a farm tractor replace? An electronic database vs clerks and file
cards?

There's not a one-for-one equivalent.

pt

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 15 May 2024 08:30:22 -0400, Cryptoengineer
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/11/2024 12:00 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:02:21 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>>>
>>>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, just like reality.
>>>>
>>>> USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I
>>>> wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.
>>>> That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a
>>>> hit man instead, much cheaper.
>>>
>>> Talk to congress, they've had plenty of warnings and decades to
>>> alleviate the problem, but the fucking unelected grover norquist
>>> has screwed us all.
>>>
>>> Corporations, who benefit from stable employees, should be
>>> contributing to SS. They should (as per Warren Buffet)
>>> be paying their fair share, rather than leaching off the
>>> American public.
>>
>> As others have pointed, they are. And, if this one or that one isn't,
>> it's going find itself in deep kimshee.
>>
>> OTOH, requiring them to determine what they would be paying their
>> robotic workers if they were replaced by humans and paying payroll
>> taxes on /that/ might be one way of funding Social Security and
>> Medicare [1]. And ... adjust ... the cost/benefit analysis of
>> replacing humans with robots a bit.
>>
>> [1] If they are already doing this, feel free to tell me. If this is
>> not practical politically, I agree. Have a nice day.
>
>What's a 'robot worker'? Replacement usually isn't going to be firing
>a human, and putting a humanoid robot in his/her place. How many humans
>did a farm tractor replace? An electronic database vs clerks and file
>cards?
>
>There's not a one-for-one equivalent.

An article about one of the smaller (population-wise) States -- the
States devastated by the export of jobs -- the States filled with
red-blooded white American males itching to work for a living --
explored this.

A factory opened and started a 10-person line. After trying for
months, they found a total of 8 locals (out of a much larger number of
unemployed potential workers) who were willing and able to show up
clean and sober five days a week and work 8 hours a day. Everybody
else preferred ... a different lifestyle. Including most white
American males. The 8 did the work, but with a lot of jumping from
position to position.

So the brought in two robots to finish the line. The /article's/ point
was that reality and Republican dogma are at variance. No news there.
My point is that the business should be paying their payroll taxes for
the two robots just as if they were humans. Based on whatever they pay
the humans, or paid them in the past, adjusted for inflation if no
current human employees exist to provide an amount.

The goal, after all, is to keep Social Security going. Allowing robots
to replace workers isn't going to help with that if payroll taxes are
only paid on the humans. And the cost of the payroll taxes should
affect the cost/benifit analysis of when and where to use them.

OTOH, sending every adult in the country, say, $4K/mo and then taxing
the heck out of any income over $48K might work. Particularly as
people lose interest in working and robots take over their jobs. It
could even use a single rate, applicable to all, since those not
making very much would be making their $48K ($96K for married couples,
of course, plus $48K for each dependent). At last! A single-rate
proposal that everyone can support!
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[Cryptoengineer]

On 5/15/2024 12:04 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Wed, 15 May 2024 08:30:22 -0400, Cryptoengineer
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2024 12:00 PM, Paul S Person wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 May 2024 21:02:21 GMT, ***@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, just like reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I
>>>>> wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.
>>>>> That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a
>>>>> hit man instead, much cheaper.
>>>>
>>>> Talk to congress, they've had plenty of warnings and decades to
>>>> alleviate the problem, but the fucking unelected grover norquist
>>>> has screwed us all.
>>>>
>>>> Corporations, who benefit from stable employees, should be
>>>> contributing to SS. They should (as per Warren Buffet)
>>>> be paying their fair share, rather than leaching off the
>>>> American public.
>>>
>>> As others have pointed, they are. And, if this one or that one isn't,
>>> it's going find itself in deep kimshee.
>>>
>>> OTOH, requiring them to determine what they would be paying their
>>> robotic workers if they were replaced by humans and paying payroll
>>> taxes on /that/ might be one way of funding Social Security and
>>> Medicare [1]. And ... adjust ... the cost/benefit analysis of
>>> replacing humans with robots a bit.
>>>
>>> [1] If they are already doing this, feel free to tell me. If this is
>>> not practical politically, I agree. Have a nice day.
>>
>> What's a 'robot worker'? Replacement usually isn't going to be firing
>> a human, and putting a humanoid robot in his/her place. How many humans
>> did a farm tractor replace? An electronic database vs clerks and file
>> cards?
>>
>> There's not a one-for-one equivalent.
>
> An article about one of the smaller (population-wise) States -- the
> States devastated by the export of jobs -- the States filled with
> red-blooded white American males itching to work for a living --
> explored this.
>
> A factory opened and started a 10-person line. After trying for
> months, they found a total of 8 locals (out of a much larger number of
> unemployed potential workers) who were willing and able to show up
> clean and sober five days a week and work 8 hours a day. Everybody
> else preferred ... a different lifestyle. Including most white
> American males. The 8 did the work, but with a lot of jumping from
> position to position.
>
> So the brought in two robots to finish the line. The /article's/ point
> was that reality and Republican dogma are at variance. No news there.
> My point is that the business should be paying their payroll taxes for
> the two robots just as if they were humans. Based on whatever they pay
> the humans, or paid them in the past, adjusted for inflation if no
> current human employees exist to provide an amount.
>
> The goal, after all, is to keep Social Security going. Allowing robots
> to replace workers isn't going to help with that if payroll taxes are
> only paid on the humans. And the cost of the payroll taxes should
> affect the cost/benifit analysis of when and where to use them.

We're faced with a demographic collapse - there are fewer and fewer
working people to provide for more and more retirees. We've managed
so far partly by improving productivity.

However, more and more of the excess from the productivity increase
is being held by fewer and fewer people. To re balance this, we need
significant income and wealth distribution.

> OTOH, sending every adult in the country, say, $4K/mo and then taxing
> the heck out of any income over $48K might work. Particularly as
> people lose interest in working and robots take over their jobs. It
> could even use a single rate, applicable to all, since those not
> making very much would be making their $48K ($96K for married couples,
> of course, plus $48K for each dependent). At last! A single-rate
> proposal that everyone can support!

I think some form of UBI is the only sustainable solution.

pt

[D]

On Wed, 15 May 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:

>> OTOH, sending every adult in the country, say, $4K/mo and then taxing
>> the heck out of any income over $48K might work. Particularly as
>> people lose interest in working and robots take over their jobs. It
>> could even use a single rate, applicable to all, since those not
>> making very much would be making their $48K ($96K for married couples,
>> of course, plus $48K for each dependent). At last! A single-rate
>> proposal that everyone can support!
>
> I think some form of UBI is the only sustainable solution.

UBI is dead from the start. It is proven by the simplest of calculations
and by history what happens with UBI schemes.

The best way is to return to the foundation of wester wealth, capitalism
and imprison all the socialists who are the reason why we are where we
are.

[Paul S Person]

On Wed, 15 May 2024 21:37:52 +0200, D <***@example.net> wrote:

>
>
>On Wed, 15 May 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>
>>> OTOH, sending every adult in the country, say, $4K/mo and then taxing
>>> the heck out of any income over $48K might work. Particularly as
>>> people lose interest in working and robots take over their jobs. It
>>> could even use a single rate, applicable to all, since those not
>>> making very much would be making their $48K ($96K for married couples,
>>> of course, plus $48K for each dependent). At last! A single-rate
>>> proposal that everyone can support!
>>
>> I think some form of UBI is the only sustainable solution.
>
>UBI is dead from the start. It is proven by the simplest of calculations
>and by history what happens with UBI schemes.

I was unaware that any culture had actually tried it. Indeed, I am
unaware of any culture that is so automated that 99% of the population
are not needed to produce value because robots do it all.

I am aware that actual tests have indicated that your sort of
viewpoint is far too ideological to be considered realistic. This
includes tests showing that /social workers cost more than welfare
frauds steal/ and that /paying the homeless causes them to find
housing and jobs/ (the easier cases, not those with mental problems or
career criminals).

And your buddies the Republicans have no problems with paying money to
people -- as long as they are rich people and it is a large amount of
money. It is only paying modest amounts to The Rest of Us that they
object to.

>The best way is to return to the foundation of wester wealth, capitalism
>and imprison all the socialists who are the reason why we are where we
>are.

Capitalism does so well that it is constantly screwing up to the point
that laws are required to produce anything resembling proper behavior.
Anti-trust laws. Child-labor laws. Anti-adulteration laws. Deceptive
advertising laws. The list is endless.

And, with most wealth belonging to the 1%-ers, why should the Rest of
Us care about producing any more of it for them?
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[D]

On Thu, 16 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

> On Wed, 15 May 2024 21:37:52 +0200, D <***@example.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 15 May 2024, Cryptoengineer wrote:
>>
>>>> OTOH, sending every adult in the country, say, $4K/mo and then taxing
>>>> the heck out of any income over $48K might work. Particularly as
>>>> people lose interest in working and robots take over their jobs. It
>>>> could even use a single rate, applicable to all, since those not
>>>> making very much would be making their $48K ($96K for married couples,
>>>> of course, plus $48K for each dependent). At last! A single-rate
>>>> proposal that everyone can support!
>>>
>>> I think some form of UBI is the only sustainable solution.
>>
>> UBI is dead from the start. It is proven by the simplest of calculations
>> and by history what happens with UBI schemes.
>
> I was unaware that any culture had actually tried it. Indeed, I am
> unaware of any culture that is so automated that 99% of the population
> are not needed to produce value because robots do it all.
>
> I am aware that actual tests have indicated that your sort of
> viewpoint is far too ideological to be considered realistic. This
> includes tests showing that /social workers cost more than welfare
> frauds steal/ and that /paying the homeless causes them to find
> housing and jobs/ (the easier cases, not those with mental problems or
> career criminals).
>
> And your buddies the Republicans have no problems with paying money to
> people -- as long as they are rich people and it is a large amount of
> money. It is only paying modest amounts to The Rest of Us that they
> object to.
>
>> The best way is to return to the foundation of wester wealth, capitalism
>> and imprison all the socialists who are the reason why we are where we
>> are.
>
> Capitalism does so well that it is constantly screwing up to the point
> that laws are required to produce anything resembling proper behavior.
> Anti-trust laws. Child-labor laws. Anti-adulteration laws. Deceptive
> advertising laws. The list is endless.
>
> And, with most wealth belonging to the 1%-ers, why should the Rest of
> Us care about producing any more of it for them?

I was unaware we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have today
is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is far from
capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most cosy with
politicians.

As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population at
large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization compared
with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, quality of
life etc.

I could recommend Johan Norbergs book the capitalist manifesto that shows
why this is with data, but I suspect you are more interested in ideology
than science.

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:

> I was unaware we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most cosy with politicians.
>
> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, quality of life etc.

The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
rather than capitalism.

--
Michael F. Stemper
Always use apostrophe's and "quotation marks" properly.

[D]

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Michael F. Stemper wrote:

> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>
>> I was unaware we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have today is
>> a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is far from
>> capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most cosy with
>> politicians.
>>
>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population at
>> large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization compared with
>> 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth, quality of life etc.
>
> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
> rather than capitalism.

That can be explained in two ways.

1. What we enjoy now, was built up during times of much lower taxes and
much fewer regulations.

and

2. It shows that despite the enormous destructive forces of central
planning we have today, the market still enables us to live at the level
we do.

So my interpretation is that we are in the short term (and we have)
sliding down due to socialism, but in the long term, once we get back on
track, we'll see further improvements.

Probably we need a global crash or two so that people are reminded of what
happens with high taxes and regulations, and then a lot of socialist and
sleeping civil servants will be kick out and we can have the next growth
cycle.

Also note that if you are a bit contrarian, this can also be used as an
excellent foundation for investment decisions.

[Scott Dorsey]

D <***@example.net> wrote:
>So my interpretation is that we are in the short term (and we have)
>sliding down due to socialism, but in the long term, once we get back on
>track, we'll see further improvements.

I talk to a lot of young kids who say they "don't believe in capitalism"
and when I try to remind them the benefits of the capitalist system they
stare at me like I am an alien. And I realized that this is because I
am old and I remember when capitalism worked well, whereas all they have seen
in twenty years has been rich people getting richer and poor people
getting poorer.

Capitalism can work, and I have seen it work. But taking the hands off
the system and letting the market do everything results in disaster.
Corporations work together both by collusion and forming trusts and in
consolidation to try to eliminate competition. They see competition as
bad for them individually, but in fact competition is what makes capitalism
work.

And we, as people who are old enough to remember capitalism working, damned
well better start making it work again before those kids take over, as they
eventually will. Eisenhower warned us all.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[D]

On Sun, 18 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> D <***@example.net> wrote:
>> So my interpretation is that we are in the short term (and we have)
>> sliding down due to socialism, but in the long term, once we get back on
>> track, we'll see further improvements.
>
> I talk to a lot of young kids who say they "don't believe in capitalism"
> and when I try to remind them the benefits of the capitalist system they
> stare at me like I am an alien. And I realized that this is because I
> am old and I remember when capitalism worked well, whereas all they have seen
> in twenty years has been rich people getting richer and poor people
> getting poorer.
>
> Capitalism can work, and I have seen it work. But taking the hands off
> the system and letting the market do everything results in disaster.
> Corporations work together both by collusion and forming trusts and in
> consolidation to try to eliminate competition. They see competition as
> bad for them individually, but in fact competition is what makes capitalism
> work.
>
> And we, as people who are old enough to remember capitalism working, damned
> well better start making it work again before those kids take over, as they
> eventually will. Eisenhower warned us all.
> --scott

But it is the government and corporation influencing it that demolishes
capitalism. Like you, I've seen it work well, but my belief is that
improvements never happen in a straight line. It fluctuates, sometimse
goes down, followed by a rise.

If we zoom out to the level of 100s of years, the historic trend is clear.

So the reason the young see what they do, is that the government (and
corporate lobbyists) have interfered with the market, so we have less
capitalism and not more.

But, when it comes to your warning I agree. It is an interesting question
how we can educate people in the blessings of capitalism, so they do _not_
grow up into politicians who want to "fix" the market and by fixing it,
they destroy it.

[Scott Dorsey]

D <***@example.net> wrote:
>
>But it is the government and corporation influencing it that demolishes
>capitalism. Like you, I've seen it work well, but my belief is that
>improvements never happen in a straight line. It fluctuates, sometimse
>goes down, followed by a rise.

Right. And in a democracy, the people who are responsible for that in
the end comes down to us, the voters.

>So the reason the young see what they do, is that the government (and
>corporate lobbyists) have interfered with the market, so we have less
>capitalism and not more.

Right, although I am not sure I would say "less capitalism" but I would
say "less fairness in capitalism."

>But, when it comes to your warning I agree. It is an interesting question
>how we can educate people in the blessings of capitalism, so they do _not_
>grow up into politicians who want to "fix" the market and by fixing it,
>they destroy it.

All we can do is to make it work by example.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[D]

On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> But it is the government and corporation influencing it that demolishes
>> capitalism. Like you, I've seen it work well, but my belief is that
>> improvements never happen in a straight line. It fluctuates, sometimse
>> goes down, followed by a rise.
>
> Right. And in a democracy, the people who are responsible for that in
> the end comes down to us, the voters.

In theory, in practice in the west, I'd say that the power rests with
parties, career politicians, lobbyist and the captains of industry. The
regular voters are given the illusion of choice, but in reality they don't
really make any big changes.

>> So the reason the young see what they do, is that the government (and
>> corporate lobbyists) have interfered with the market, so we have less
>> capitalism and not more.
>
> Right, although I am not sure I would say "less capitalism" but I would
> say "less fairness in capitalism."

Hmm, maybe.

>> But, when it comes to your warning I agree. It is an interesting question
>> how we can educate people in the blessings of capitalism, so they do _not_
>> grow up into politicians who want to "fix" the market and by fixing it,
>> they destroy it.
>
> All we can do is to make it work by example.
> --scott

That is very much true! =)

[Titus G]

On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>
>> I was unaware

Ignorance is bliss.

we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>> cosy with politicians.
>>
>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>> quality of life etc.
>
> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
> rather than capitalism.
>

Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>
>>> I was unaware
>
> Ignorance is bliss.
>
> we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>
>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>> quality of life etc.
>>
>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>> rather than capitalism.
>>
>
> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.

One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a
"planned economy".


--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[D]

On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was unaware
>>
>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>
>> we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>
>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>
>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>
>>
>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>
> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or legal
> restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a "planned
> economy".

Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of
studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that government
"fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen the horrors
of socialism up close as in europe.

On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of
Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
(https://archive.is/XAISI).

I agree completely with him.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was unaware
>>>
>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>
>>>   we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>
>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>
>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and
>> a "planned economy".
>
> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
> results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of
> studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
> more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen
> the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.
>
> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of
> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>
> I agree completely with him.

The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
else over the head and taking their things.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 19/05/2024 12.05, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:

>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>
>> I agree completely with him.
>
>   Can't have a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone else over the head and taking their things.

That's just showing initiative! Innovation!

--
Michael F. Stemper
The FAQ for rec.arts.sf.written is at
<http://leepers.us/evelyn/faqs/sf-written.htm>
Please read it before posting.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 5/19/2024 10:28 AM, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
> On 19/05/2024 12.05, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>
>>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO
>>> of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>>
>>> I agree completely with him.
>>
>>   Can't have a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from
>> whacking someone else over the head and taking their things.
>
> That's just showing initiative! Innovation!
>
Whoever whacks last is CEO!

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[D]

On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was unaware
>>>>
>>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>>
>>>>   we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>>
>>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or legal
>>> restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a
>>> "planned economy".
>>
>> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse results.
>> On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of studying
>> socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a more free
>> country, that it is easier to come to the belief that government "fixes"
>> all the problems of the market when you have not seen the horrors of
>> socialism up close as in europe.
>>
>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of
>> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>
>> I agree completely with him.
>
> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it doesn't
> exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of regulation and laws
> about how commerce is transacted. When you start stripping away all the
> propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that you can't _HAVE_ capitalism
> without rules and regulations. Can't have a marketplace if there is nothing
> preventing someone from whacking someone else over the head and taking their
> things.

The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
they agree upon. If you read what I say carefully you will find me
criticizing government and political regulation. Nothing could be further
from my mind and my position than banning two people who voluntarily
transact to come up with their contracts.

I recommend you to have a look at mises.org for loads of information that
explains to you how that works and the benefits, if you are genuinely
interested.

If you argue based on ideology, then for the love of god, please do _not_
check that web site, since it will only make you angry.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 5/19/2024 1:38 PM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>
>> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was unaware
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>>>
>>>>>   we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>>>
>>>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist"
>>>> and a "planned economy".
>>>
>>> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
>>> results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit"
>>> of studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US
>>> or a more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
>>> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not
>>> seen the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.
>>>
>>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO
>>> of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>>
>>> I agree completely with him.
>>
>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>> doesn't exist.  Never has.  There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted.  When you start
>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations.  Can't have
>> a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking
>> someone else over the head and taking their things.
>
> The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
> they agree upon. If you read what I say carefully you will find me
> criticizing government and political regulation. Nothing could be
> further from my mind and my position than banning two people who
> voluntarily transact to come up with their contracts.
>
So people cannot ban together to negotiate and trade? (What exactly do
you think a government is?)
So the sale of any kind of drug or chemical should not be regulated by
the government?
The sale of weaponry, explosives and the like should not be regulated by
the government?
The kidnapping, purchase and sale of other humans to be used as slave
labor should not be regulated by the government?
The destruction of the local environment and making the area around a
manufacturing facility uninhabitable and lethal should not be regulated?

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[Titus G]

On 20/05/24 13:11, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
snip

> So people cannot ban together to negotiate and trade?  (What exactly do
> you think a government is?)
> So the sale of any kind of drug or chemical should not be regulated by
> the government?
> The sale of weaponry, explosives and the like should not be regulated by
> the government?
> The kidnapping, purchase and sale of other humans to be used as slave
> labor should not be regulated by the government?
> The destruction of the local environment and making the area around a
> manufacturing facility uninhabitable and lethal should not be regulated?
>

Of course. Based on history to date, wealth and power do not lead to
immortality but do make it extremely unlikely to be exposed to wage
slave labour. Given that we old white guys aren't going to be here for
more than a few more decades, it makes sense to use our wealth for
shorter term gains and how else can the great unwashed be kept occupied
without drugs and guns? You should have thought this through before
rushing to reply.

[Cryptoengineer]

Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:
> On 5/19/2024 1:38 PM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was unaware
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>>>>
>>>>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist"
>>>>> and a "planned economy".
>>>>
>>>> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
>>>> results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit"
>>>> of studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US
>>>> or a more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
>>>> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not
>>>> seen the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.
>>>>
>>>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO
>>>> of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>>>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>>>
>>>> I agree completely with him.
>>>
>>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>>> doesn't exist.  Never has.  There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted.  When you start
>>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations.  Can't have
>>> a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking
>>> someone else over the head and taking their things.
>>
>> The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
>> they agree upon. If you read what I say carefully you will find me
>> criticizing government and political regulation. Nothing could be
>> further from my mind and my position than banning two people who
>> voluntarily transact to come up with their contracts.
>>
> So people cannot ban together to negotiate and trade? (What exactly do
> you think a government is?)
> So the sale of any kind of drug or chemical should not be regulated by
> the government?
> The sale of weaponry, explosives and the like should not be regulated by
> the government?
> The kidnapping, purchase and sale of other humans to be used as slave
> labor should not be regulated by the government?
> The destruction of the local environment and making the area around a
> manufacturing facility uninhabitable and lethal should not be regulated?

Sign.... D is a libertarian, and would be a fan of Ayn Rand if he's heard
of her.

I used to be that way.

But I grew up.

Pt

[Scott Lurndal]

Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:
>On 5/19/2024 1:38 PM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was unaware
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>>>>
>>>>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist"
>>>>> and a "planned economy".
>>>>
>>>> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
>>>> results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit"
>>>> of studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US
>>>> or a more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
>>>> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not
>>>> seen the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.
>>>>
>>>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO
>>>> of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>>>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>>>
>>>> I agree completely with him.
>>>
>>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>>> doesn't exist.  Never has.  There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted.  When you start
>>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations.  Can't have
>>> a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking
>>> someone else over the head and taking their things.
>>
>> The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
>> they agree upon. If you read what I say carefully you will find me
>> criticizing government and political regulation. Nothing could be
>> further from my mind and my position than banning two people who
>> voluntarily transact to come up with their contracts.
>>
>So people cannot ban together to negotiate and trade? (What exactly do
>you think a government is?)
>So the sale of any kind of drug or chemical should not be regulated by
>the government?
>The sale of weaponry, explosives and the like should not be regulated by
>the government?
>The kidnapping, purchase and sale of other humans to be used as slave
>labor should not be regulated by the government?
>The destruction of the local environment and making the area around a
>manufacturing facility uninhabitable and lethal should not be regulated?

D is quoting from mises.org. From wikipedia:

The Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics,
or Mises Institute, is a nonprofit think tank headquartered
in Auburn, Alabama, that is a center for Austrian economics,
radical right-wing libertarian thought and the paleolibertarian
and anarcho-capitalist movements in the United States.

It was founded in 1982 by Lew Rockwell, chief of staff to Texas
Republican Congressman Ron Paul.

"It favors a "Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen
as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of
social justice is destructive".

[D]

On Mon, 20 May 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:
>> On 5/19/2024 1:38 PM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>>>>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I was unaware
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ?? we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>>>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>>>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist"
>>>>>> and a "planned economy".
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
>>>>> results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit"
>>>>> of studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US
>>>>> or a more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
>>>>> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not
>>>>> seen the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.
>>>>>
>>>>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where B??rje Ekholm, CEO
>>>>> of Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>>>>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree completely with him.
>>>>
>>>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>>>> doesn't exist.?? Never has.?? There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>>>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted.?? When you start
>>>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>>>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations.?? Can't have
>>>> a marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking
>>>> someone else over the head and taking their things.
>>>
>>> The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
>>> they agree upon. If you read what I say carefully you will find me
>>> criticizing government and political regulation. Nothing could be
>>> further from my mind and my position than banning two people who
>>> voluntarily transact to come up with their contracts.
>>>
>> So people cannot ban together to negotiate and trade? (What exactly do
>> you think a government is?)
>> So the sale of any kind of drug or chemical should not be regulated by
>> the government?
>> The sale of weaponry, explosives and the like should not be regulated by
>> the government?
>> The kidnapping, purchase and sale of other humans to be used as slave
>> labor should not be regulated by the government?
>> The destruction of the local environment and making the area around a
>> manufacturing facility uninhabitable and lethal should not be regulated?
>
> D is quoting from mises.org. From wikipedia:
>
> The Ludwig von Mises Institute for Austrian Economics,
> or Mises Institute, is a nonprofit think tank headquartered
> in Auburn, Alabama, that is a center for Austrian economics,
> radical right-wing libertarian thought and the paleolibertarian
> and anarcho-capitalist movements in the United States.
>
> It was founded in 1982 by Lew Rockwell, chief of staff to Texas
> Republican Congressman Ron Paul.
>
> "It favors a "Darwinian view of society in which elites are seen
> as natural and any intervention by the government on behalf of
> social justice is destructive".

That's a joke and it teaches us the political bias of wikipedia and why it
should never be used as a serious reference. Let me contrast that with
this text from mises.org:

"The Mises Institute is a non-profit organization that exists to promote
teaching and research in the Austrian school of economics, and individual
freedom, honest history, and international peace, in the tradition of
Ludwig von Mises and Murray N. Rothbard".

Now you can go there yourself and form your own opinion.

[D]

On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 5/19/2024 1:38 PM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, 19 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was unaware
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>>>>
>>>>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a
>>>>> "planned economy".
>>>>
>>>> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
>>>> results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of
>>>> studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
>>>> more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
>>>> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen
>>>> the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.
>>>>
>>>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of
>>>> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>>>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>>>
>>>> I agree completely with him.
>>>
>>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>>> doesn't exist.  Never has.  There has ALWAYS been some kind of regulation
>>> and laws about how commerce is transacted.  When you start stripping away
>>> all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that you can't _HAVE_
>>> capitalism without rules and regulations.  Can't have a marketplace if
>>> there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone else over the
>>> head and taking their things.
>>
>> The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
>> they agree upon. If you read what I say carefully you will find me
>> criticizing government and political regulation. Nothing could be further
>> from my mind and my position than banning two people who voluntarily
>> transact to come up with their contracts.
>>
> So people cannot ban together to negotiate and trade? (What exactly do you
> think a government is?)

Sure they can, as long as they don't violate their contracts with their
employers.

> So the sale of any kind of drug or chemical should not be regulated by the
> government?

Exactly! Instead it would be "regulated" by the owner of the property
where the sale takes place. Absent an owner, no regulation at all.

> The sale of weaponry, explosives and the like should not be regulated by the
> government?

Exactly! Now you're getting it! Except, see above.

> The kidnapping, purchase and sale of other humans to be used as slave labor
> should not be regulated by the government?

Kidnapping violates the right of the individual being kidnapped and will
be protected against with personal weapons, nieghbourshood watches,
security companies etc.

In theory, although I doubt anyone would agree, someone can sell himself
as a slave, but probably the nr of persons doing that would be close to
zero.

Also note that financially slave labour does not make sense. Companies
employing people perform better than organizations employing slaves.

> The destruction of the local environment and making the area around a
> manufacturing facility uninhabitable and lethal should not be regulated?

Depends on who owns the land. Some land will be destroyed (like today,
both by governments and private individuals and companies) and some land
will be protected. Eliminate the commons and you also eliminate the
tragedy of the commons.

Did I manage to convince you? =)

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 5/20/2024 11:44 AM, D wrote:
>
>
> Did I manage to convince you? =)

Yes, but not of what you wanted to convince me of.

*PLONK*

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[D]

On Mon, 20 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:

> On 5/20/2024 11:44 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> Did I manage to convince you? =)
>
> Yes, but not of what you wanted to convince me of.
>
> *PLONK*

=( Well, at least I tried! ;)

[William Hyde]

D wrote:

>
> The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
> they agree upon.


This being a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions
when you are sent back to London in 1870.

You are hungry, and want some bread.

Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?

(1) Grain
(2) Yeast
(3) Chalk
(4) Alum
(5) Plaster of Paris.

Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do you
even know it is there? In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of
Paris an agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is there?

Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you rent a room in a new
building with cheerful bright wallpaper.

How much Arsenic is in the room?

(1) Trace amounts
(2) One pound
(3) Two pounds
(4) Three pounds
(5) Four pounds
(6) Five pounds.

At what point did you agree to rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of
Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his tenants
when he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on
just how much Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?




William Hyde

[D]

On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:

> D wrote:
>
>>
>> The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
>> they agree upon.
>
>
> This being a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions when
> you are sent back to London in 1870.
>
> You are hungry, and want some bread.
>
> Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?
>
> (1) Grain
> (2) Yeast
> (3) Chalk
> (4) Alum
> (5) Plaster of Paris.
>
> Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do you even
> know it is there? In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of Paris an
> agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is there?
>
> Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you rent a room in a new building
> with cheerful bright wallpaper.
>
> How much Arsenic is in the room?
>
> (1) Trace amounts
> (2) One pound
> (3) Two pounds
> (4) Three pounds
> (5) Four pounds
> (6) Five pounds.
>
> At what point did you agree to rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of
> Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his tenants when
> he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on just how much
> Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?
>
>
>
>
> William Hyde

Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your
customers. I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.
If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how, I can
recommend excellent books.

[James Nicoll]

In article <44938613-85d8-1f1d-4bd6-***@example.net>,
D <***@example.net> wrote:
>
>
>On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:
>
>> D wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is what
>>> they agree upon.
>>
>>
>> This being a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions when
>> you are sent back to London in 1870.
>>
>> You are hungry, and want some bread.
>>
>> Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?
>>
>> (1) Grain
>> (2) Yeast
>> (3) Chalk
>> (4) Alum
>> (5) Plaster of Paris.
>>
>> Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do you even
>> know it is there? In what sense is your consumption of Plaster of Paris an
>> agreed upon transaction if you have no way of knowing it is there?
>>
>> Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you rent a room in a new
>building
>> with cheerful bright wallpaper.
>>
>> How much Arsenic is in the room?
>>
>> (1) Trace amounts
>> (2) One pound
>> (3) Two pounds
>> (4) Three pounds
>> (5) Four pounds
>> (6) Five pounds.
>>
>> At what point did you agree to rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of
>> Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his tenants when
>> he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep silent on just
>how much
>> Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> William Hyde
>
>Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your
>customers. I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.
>If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how, I can
>recommend excellent books.
>
And yet, not only did such things frequently happen in the past, they
happen now. It's almost as though your model does not actually reflect
reality.

--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[William Hyde]

D wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, 20 May 2024, William Hyde wrote:
>
>> D wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The only regulation that is necessary for two people to transact is
>>> what they agree upon.
>>
>>
>> This being  a science fiction newsgroup, let's consider your decisions
>> when you are sent back to London in 1870.
>>
>> You are hungry, and want some bread.
>>
>> Which of the following do you expect to find in your bread?
>>
>> (1) Grain
>> (2) Yeast
>> (3) Chalk
>> (4) Alum
>> (5) Plaster of Paris.
>>
>> Do you "agree" with the bakery that you want Alum in your bread? Do
>> you even know it is there?   In what sense is your consumption of
>> Plaster of Paris an agreed upon transaction if you have no way of
>> knowing it is there?
>>
>> Full of nourishing wheat with extra chalk, you  rent a room in a new
>> building with cheerful bright wallpaper.
>>
>> How much Arsenic is in the room?
>>
>> (1) Trace amounts
>> (2) One pound
>> (3) Two pounds
>> (4) Three pounds
>> (5) Four pounds
>> (6) Five pounds.
>>
>> At what point did you agree to  rent a room infused with 3.7 pounds of
>> Arsenic? For that matter, did your landlord agree to poison his
>> tenants when he bought the wallpaper, or did the manufacturer keep
>> silent on just how much Arsenic was needed for those vivid colours?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> William Hyde
>
> Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your
> customers.

Your conclusion is contradicted by reality. This strategy worked for
decades, and in other contexts, works now.



I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.


Aside from the time travel, this all happened. There was plaster of
Paris in the bread, Arsenic in the wallpaper.

Nobody asked for this, nobody wanted it, but they got it. Free market!


> If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how,

Oh, I love that "really". After "really" ignoring the facts I gave
above, you point me to "excellent books".

The facts of history directly contradict your claims. But you prefer
theory.


William Hyde

[Scott Lurndal]

Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:
>On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was unaware
>>>>
>>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>>
>>>>   we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>>
>>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and
>>> a "planned economy".
>>
>> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
>> results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of
>> studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
>> more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
>> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen
>> the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.
>>
>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of
>> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>
>> I agree completely with him.
>
>The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
>stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
>marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
>else over the head and taking their things.

Modern capitalism has been predicated on infinite growth. That
infinite growth, has in turn been predicated on infinite supplies of
cheap energy.

The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
not be reversable in any human timescale.

What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
be pleasant.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/20/2024 11:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:
>> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was unaware
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>>>
>>>>>   we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>>>
>>>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and
>>>> a "planned economy".
>>>
>>> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
>>> results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of
>>> studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
>>> more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
>>> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen
>>> the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.
>>>
>>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of
>>> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>>
>>> I agree completely with him.
>>
>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>> doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
>> else over the head and taking their things.
>
> Modern capitalism has been predicated on infinite growth. That
> infinite growth, has in turn been predicated on infinite supplies of
> cheap energy.
>
> The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
> million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
> of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
> not be reversable in any human timescale.
>
> What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
> be pleasant.
>
> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

Oh no, another Peak Oiler !

Lynn

[Scott Lurndal]

Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>On 5/20/2024 11:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:

>>
>> What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
>> be pleasant.
>>
>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
>
>Oh no, another Peak Oiler !

Rather than name calling (and in fact, Dr. Murphy is a physicist),
why don't you address the facts in that post?

It is about preparing for the inevitable decline in petroleum production;
which pretty much everybody, except you apparently, know is coming.

The point of the article is that it takes energy to make energy,
and the EROEI ratio (energy produced to energy consumed to produce it)
has been dropping rather precipitously for fossil fuels (from 100:1
a century ago, to less than 3:1 for e.g. oil sands).

If the cost to produce one unit of energy is two units of
energy, you can see the trap closing on your feet.

[Dimensional Traveler]

On 5/20/2024 9:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:
>> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was unaware
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>>>
>>>>>   we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>>>
>>>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and
>>>> a "planned economy".
>>>
>>> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
>>> results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of
>>> studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
>>> more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
>>> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen
>>> the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.
>>>
>>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of
>>> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>>
>>> I agree completely with him.
>>
>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>> doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
>> else over the head and taking their things.
>
> Modern capitalism has been predicated on infinite growth. That
> infinite growth, has in turn been predicated on infinite supplies of
> cheap energy.
>
> The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
> million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
> of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
> not be reversable in any human timescale.
>
> What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
> be pleasant.
>
> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

The current ECONOMY is based on non-renewable hydrocarbons. Whatever
replaces that economy will likely still be a CAPITALIST society.

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

[Scott Lurndal]

Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:
>On 5/20/2024 9:00 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:
>>> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>>>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I was unaware
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>   we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>>>>
>>>>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and
>>>>> a "planned economy".
>>>>
>>>> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
>>>> results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of
>>>> studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
>>>> more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
>>>> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen
>>>> the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.
>>>>
>>>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where Börje Ekholm, CEO of
>>>> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>>>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>>>
>>>> I agree completely with him.
>>>
>>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>>> doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
>>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
>>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
>>> else over the head and taking their things.
>>
>> Modern capitalism has been predicated on infinite growth. That
>> infinite growth, has in turn been predicated on infinite supplies of
>> cheap energy.
>>
>> The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
>> million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
>> of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
>> not be reversable in any human timescale.
>>
>> What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
>> be pleasant.
>>
>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
>
>The current ECONOMY is based on non-renewable hydrocarbons. Whatever
>replaces that economy will likely still be a CAPITALIST society.

Infinite growth seems physically impossible (at least within the
context of a single planet); absent some magic technology,
humanity has only the finite planet earth.

A steady-state economy may or may not meet the definition of
capitalist (and I suspect that it wouldn't).

[D]

On Mon, 20 May 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> writes:
>> On 5/19/2024 4:03 AM, D wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, 18 May 2024, Dimensional Traveler wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I was unaware
>>>>>
>>>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>>>
>>>>> ?? we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>>>
>>>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>>>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and
>>>> a "planned economy".
>>>
>>> Yep, or if not, at least reduces the efficiency and produces worse
>>> results. On the other hand, I live in europe, so I get the "benefit" of
>>> studying socialism up close every day. I imagine living in the US or a
>>> more free country, that it is easier to come to the belief that
>>> government "fixes" all the problems of the market when you have not seen
>>> the horrors of socialism up close as in europe.
>>>
>>> On that theme, I recommend this article in FT where B??rje Ekholm, CEO of
>>> Ericsson says that overregulation is driving the EU to irrelevance
>>> (https://archive.is/XAISI).
>>>
>>> I agree completely with him.
>>
>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>> doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
>> else over the head and taking their things.
>
> Modern capitalism has been predicated on infinite growth. That
> infinite growth, has in turn been predicated on infinite supplies of
> cheap energy.
>
> The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
> million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
> of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
> not be reversable in any human timescale.
>
> What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
> be pleasant.
>
> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

I disagree. I think we'll continue to grow when we start with asteroid
mining, deep sea mining etc. We're not even close to the end. Eventually
we'll colonize other planets.

In terms of energy, this is a solved problem which is only being stopped
or slowed down by politicians and over regulation.

Last but not least, with increased automation, there's also the aspect of
doing more with less.

In terms of what eventually will replace capitalism, I imagine some kind
of post-scarcity society á la Star trek with nano-technology, ubiquitous
solar power, 3d-printing and so on. But that is of course today just
science fiction and speculation.

But you can tell that I am short term negative, but long term extremely
optimistic about the human race and its future. =)

[Scott Lurndal]

D <***@example.net> writes:
> This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text,

Please don't post MIME. This is usenet, not farcebook.


>
>> The availability of cheap energy was the result of several hundred
>> million years of stored solar (in the form of fossil fuels), the bulk
>> of which has been consumed. With deleterious side effects that may
>> not be reversable in any human timescale.
>>
>> What system will replace capitalism is not clear, but it will likely not
>> be pleasant.
>>
>> https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/10/the-energy-trap/
>
>I disagree. I think we'll continue to grow when we start with asteroid
>mining, deep sea mining etc. We're not even close to the end. Eventually
>we'll colonize other planets.

Dr. Murphy addresses those topics as well. You are clearly suffering
from wishful thinking. Colonization of any planet is currently
way beyond our capabilities - it's not even clear that humans can survive
on any planet other than earth using only in-situ resources. Even
Mars, which would be the most likely candidate, suffers from the lack
of a van allen belt and thus the radiation at the surface pretty much
precludes any substantial settlement by humans.

>
>In terms of energy, this is a solved problem which is only being stopped
>or slowed down by politicians and over regulation.

Please enlighten us with exactly how those problems have been
solved, and exactly which regulations you think are standing in
the way.

There is no alternative form of energy production (including nuclear
and fusion) that can support the historic growth in energy consumption.


>In terms of what eventually will replace capitalism, I imagine some kind
>of post-scarcity society á la Star trek with nano-technology, ubiquitous
>solar power, 3d-printing and so on. But that is of course today just
>science fiction and speculation.

And likely will remain so.

A more comprehensive survey of all your proposed solutions is
discussed here, with supporting math.

https://escholarship.org/uc/item/9js5291m

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 18 May 2024 20:35:30 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<***@sonic.net> wrote:

>On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>
>>>> I was unaware
>>
>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>
>> we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>
>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>
>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>
>>
>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>
>One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a
>"planned economy".

One suspects that D is a wanna-be 1%er who is upset that he can't
reach his goal if any laws of any sort, type, or kind exist.

It is clear that his version of "capitalism" includes such features
as: trusts/syndicates/market-cornering/squeezing everybody else,
competition without any restrictions, no labor unions, abundant child
labor, adulteration as need to increase profits, and so on. /That/ is
the "capitalism" he supports.

He also appears to have swallowed the "peak of civilization" "high
culture" /restricted to white Western Europeans/ myth.

This isn't unique, of course. Tillich, after WW2, was appalled at how
quickly Germany, "the most civilized society on Earth", had fallen
into barbarism. He failed to realize that what he called "civilized
behavior" was merely the behavior of the Upper and Upper-Middle
classes (who could afford special clothes for going to plays and
concerts, and the carriages needed to get there and back) -- a
paper-thin covering over the abyss of reality.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[D]

On Sun, 19 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

> On Sat, 18 May 2024 20:35:30 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
> <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2024 5:56 PM, Titus G wrote:
>>> On 19/05/24 01:34, Michael F. Stemper wrote:
>>>> On 17/05/2024 15.31, D wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I was unaware
>>>
>>> Ignorance is bliss.
>>>
>>> we have anything resembling capitalism. What we have
>>>>> today is a plan economy with government calling the shots, which is
>>>>> far from capitalism. Many billionaires are the ones who are the most
>>>>> cosy with politicians.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for who the wealth belongs to and the benefits for the population
>>>>> at large, note that we are living at a high peak of civilization
>>>>> compared with 100 years ago on all scales, infant mortality, wealth,
>>>>> quality of life etc.
>>>>
>>>> The implication of what you're saying is that living at the peak of
>>>> civilization is strongly correlated with having a planned economy
>>>> rather than capitalism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Be careful. You might smear his rose tinted spectacles.
>>
>> One suspects that D is of the opinion that any kind of regulation or
>> legal restraint immediately makes a given economy "non-capitalist" and a
>> "planned economy".
>
> One suspects that D is a wanna-be 1%er who is upset that he can't
> reach his goal if any laws of any sort, type, or kind exist.

You will never know. But I do find your guesses and interpretations very
entertaining, so please continue. =)

> It is clear that his version of "capitalism" includes such features
> as: trusts/syndicates/market-cornering/squeezing everybody else,
> competition without any restrictions, no labor unions, abundant child
> labor, adulteration as need to increase profits, and so on. /That/ is
> the "capitalism" he supports.

Let's content ourselves with less is more. Some of the above is good, some
of the above was good, some of it is necessary along the development of
capitalism, and some is untenable in a free market, and only exists today
because of hte government.

I was not aware of your level of ignorance, but now that I am, I can
understand that socialism seems workable to you.

If you would like to educate yourself, I recommend that you have a look at
mises.org. You'll find plenty of good and solid free market material there
to enlighten you.

> He also appears to have swallowed the "peak of civilization" "high
> culture" /restricted to white Western Europeans/ myth.

It is true. European science and technology is the foundation of our
modern civilization and has basically won. Granted, there are local
cultures left, but on the whole, the western mentality, science nad
mindset has been proven to be the most utilitarian.

Only woke people insist on not realizing this, and that is why we are in a
political incline since everything european and white is labeled as bad,
and we see the enormous destruction of this mindset.

But the public will wake up eventually, and then we'll move on to higher
levels of european civilization.

> This isn't unique, of course. Tillich, after WW2, was appalled at how
> quickly Germany, "the most civilized society on Earth", had fallen
> into barbarism. He failed to realize that what he called "civilized
> behavior" was merely the behavior of the Upper and Upper-Middle
> classes (who could afford special clothes for going to plays and
> concerts, and the carriages needed to get there and back) -- a
> paper-thin covering over the abyss of reality.

Nonsense and completely unrelated to anything I've said. Please do make an
effort at least, or else this will become very tedious very quickly.

[Scott Dorsey]

Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
>stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
>marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
>else over the head and taking their things.

What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it
less fair.

When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called
"anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people
espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be
on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.

Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Paul S Person]

On 19 May 2024 22:55:44 -0000, ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>>doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>>regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
>>stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>>you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
>>marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
>>else over the head and taking their things.
>
>What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
>they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it
>less fair.
>
>When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called
>"anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people
>espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be
>on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.

As Ayn Rand once pointed out, the /extremes/ of Left and Right are ...
very much the same, despite their ideological differences.

The anarchists re-branded themselves antifa but their behavior (hide
in a legitimate demonstration, change to all-black clothes, dart out
and attack store windows, fade back in) never changed. Nor did their
ideology: during the demonstrations, a poster appeared explaining why
/breaking downtown department store windows/ was a necessary part of
/defunding the police/. Note that it is precisely the rise in crimes
against retail businesses that, in Seattle, produced a few changes
since the last election.

That and the development of what appears to be a better way to clear
homeless encampments than having the police wade in with batons waving
and confiscating whatever possessions the occupants may possess. Not
that we've reached Nirvana yet, to be sure.

And the tea party was a picnic compared to the semi-fascist ultra-MAGA
types. Or even many of the less extreme MAGA types. Still, trimming
the Republican Party of both groups and Democratic Party of the
Friends of Bernie would be very helpful to the country.

>Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[D]

On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>> doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
>> else over the head and taking their things.
>
> What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
> they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it
> less fair.
>
> When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called
> "anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people
> espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be
> on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.
>
> Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
> --scott

Just to add to this, the left anarchist I will not say anything about, but
the right anarchist is not against rules and regulations per se. They just
say that those rules should be agreed upon by people, voluntarily and
enforced by contracts. There is no need for a government, you can have
rules and regulations without it.

Is that feasible? That's a different discussion, but this is the
difference between left anarchists and right anarchists or
"anarcho-capitalists".

[Scott Lurndal]

D <***@example.net> writes:
>
>
>On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>>> doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
>>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
>>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
>>> else over the head and taking their things.
>>
>> What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
>> they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it
>> less fair.
>>
>> When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called
>> "anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people
>> espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be
>> on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.
>>
>> Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
>> --scott
>
>Just to add to this, the left anarchist I will not say anything about, but
>the right anarchist is not against rules and regulations per se. They just
>say that those rules should be agreed upon by people, voluntarily and
>enforced by contracts.

How does a "contract" (a simple piece of paper) enforce anything on
its own?

[James Nicoll]

In article <5sN2O.32877$***@fx40.iad>,
Scott Lurndal <***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>D <***@example.net> writes:
>>
>>
>>On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>>>> doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>>>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
>>>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>>>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
>>>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
>>>> else over the head and taking their things.
>>>
>>> What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
>>> they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it
>>> less fair.
>>>
>>> When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called
>>> "anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people
>>> espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be
>>> on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.
>>>
>>> Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
>>> --scott
>>
>>Just to add to this, the left anarchist I will not say anything about, but
>>the right anarchist is not against rules and regulations per se. They just
>>say that those rules should be agreed upon by people, voluntarily and
>>enforced by contracts.
>
>How does a "contract" (a simple piece of paper) enforce anything on
>its own?

Through compelling moral gravitas. Suppose for example, you sign
a contract with Ea-Nasir for some copper. Further suppose the
copper delivered was subpar or even wood painted copper. Wave the
contract at him and surely he will instantly be shamed into providing
the copper he promised. Probably there would a clay tablet commissioned
to commemorate the event.

Alternatively, suppose Doug the developer would like to purchase D's
land. He sends Leg Breaker Leon and Excessively Homicidal Phil around
to make a fair offer. D accepts the fair offer. While he is recovering
in hospital, he discovers that his beloved family home has been torn
down (with his family inside) and construction has begun, but no funds
were transfered to his account. All he need do is admonish Doug and
present the contract, at which point he will mysteriously fall down a
flight of stairs seventeen times before being hurled off the top of
a sky scapper, because this is magical fairy libertopia, there are
no cops, and Leg Breaker Leon and Excessively Homicidal Phil got
their names for a reason. Everyone wins, and there's no need for a
nanny state.
--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[D]

On Mon, 20 May 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> D <***@example.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>
>>> Dimensional Traveler <***@sonic.net> wrote:
>>>> The problem with your "definition" of a capitalist economy is that it
>>>> doesn't exist. Never has. There has ALWAYS been some kind of
>>>> regulation and laws about how commerce is transacted. When you start
>>>> stripping away all the propaganda and unfounded beliefs you find that
>>>> you can't _HAVE_ capitalism without rules and regulations. Can't have a
>>>> marketplace if there is nothing preventing someone from whacking someone
>>>> else over the head and taking their things.
>>>
>>> What is wrong with rules and regulations? I am all in favor of them if
>>> they make the playing field fair, and I am against them when they make it
>>> less fair.
>>>
>>> When I was a kid, people who wanted to get rid of governments were called
>>> "anarchists" and they were considered to be on the extreme left. Now people
>>> espousing the same views are called "tea partiers" and are considered to be
>>> on the extreme right. Something is wrong here.
>>>
>>> Governments are good things, they exist to keep the system fair.
>>> --scott
>>
>> Just to add to this, the left anarchist I will not say anything about, but
>> the right anarchist is not against rules and regulations per se. They just
>> say that those rules should be agreed upon by people, voluntarily and
>> enforced by contracts.
>
> How does a "contract" (a simple piece of paper) enforce anything on
> its own?

Depends on how it is written. You can refer to private enforcing agencies,
arbitrators, courts etc. It is being done today and there are many
non-governmental courts which you can use in your contracts to settle
disagreements.

You can also contract how enforcement should be done. There are private
security companies who can assist with that.

[Scott Dorsey]

D <***@example.net> wrote:
>
>Needless to say, it is not very good business strategy to poison your
>customers. I think that is all I will say about this thought experiment.
>If you _really_ would like to seriously explore the why and how, I can
>recommend excellent books.

It's a very effective strategy when you have a seemingly-endless set of
new customers available to you, and when you can keep a low enough profile
that potential customers and survivors of former customers cannot identify
you.

The two examples given were good ones that happened in the US long ago,
but you can see plenty of examples in China today where safety legislation
does not exist and the market is either not sufficiently informed to realize
they are using toxic materials or have no other alternatives.

It's also worth looking at the example of the American tobacco industry.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[D]

On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>
>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>
> Yup, just like reality.
>
> USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I wait
> until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month. That is an
> amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a hit man
> instead, much cheaper.
>
> Supposedly Social Security and Medicare are going to hit $2 trillion / year
> each in 2030. That is an incredible amount of money.
>
> Lynn

Amazing! My local SS-organization (pun intended) expect me to work until
I'm 71! Hmm, or maybe it was 72, can't honestly say that I remember, and I
have absolutely no intention of following their guide lines. I do feel
sorry for the generation after me, they will be the ones locked into life
long slavery to the state.

[Paul S Person]

On Sat, 11 May 2024 10:54:55 +0200, D <***@example.net> wrote:

>
>
>On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>
>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>
>> Yup, just like reality.
>>
>> USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I wait
>> until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month. That is an
>> amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a hit man
>> instead, much cheaper.
>>
>> Supposedly Social Security and Medicare are going to hit $2 trillion / year
>> each in 2030. That is an incredible amount of money.
>>
>> Lynn
>
>Amazing! My local SS-organization (pun intended) expect me to work until
>I'm 71! Hmm, or maybe it was 72, can't honestly say that I remember, and I
>have absolutely no intention of following their guide lines. I do feel
>sorry for the generation after me, they will be the ones locked into life
>long slavery to the state.

You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
long slavery to the state", right?

Increased longevity is one of the reasons for the problem.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[D]

On Sat, 11 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

> On Sat, 11 May 2024 10:54:55 +0200, D <***@example.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>>
>>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>>
>>> Yup, just like reality.
>>>
>>> USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I wait
>>> until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month. That is an
>>> amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a hit man
>>> instead, much cheaper.
>>>
>>> Supposedly Social Security and Medicare are going to hit $2 trillion / year
>>> each in 2030. That is an incredible amount of money.
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>
>> Amazing! My local SS-organization (pun intended) expect me to work until
>> I'm 71! Hmm, or maybe it was 72, can't honestly say that I remember, and I
>> have absolutely no intention of following their guide lines. I do feel
>> sorry for the generation after me, they will be the ones locked into life
>> long slavery to the state.
>
> You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
> expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
> long slavery to the state", right?
>
> Increased longevity is one of the reasons for the problem.

I have no idea about SS since I'm not american. But from the perspective
of my country, when it was started the taxes were lower, pensions better,
and you could walk the streets without getting shot.

Today the taxes are doubled, the pension age increases every year, and you
risk getting shot to death on the street.

Given all technological progress, and all current mismanagement, telling
me that it is "fair" or "justified" because we live longer is just pure
bullsh*t.

The truth is that the political class (in my country) are getting richer,
their pensions are getting higher, the public sector expands, and _that_
is why regular people get the pleasure of slaving away longer for less.

[Scott Lurndal]

D <***@example.net> writes:
>
>
>On Sat, 11 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 10:54:55 +0200, D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>>>
>>>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>>>
>>>> Yup, just like reality.
>>>>
>>>> USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I wait
>>>> until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month. That is an
>>>> amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a hit man
>>>> instead, much cheaper.
>>>>
>>>> Supposedly Social Security and Medicare are going to hit $2 trillion / year
>>>> each in 2030. That is an incredible amount of money.
>>>>
>>>> Lynn
>>>
>>> Amazing! My local SS-organization (pun intended) expect me to work until
>>> I'm 71! Hmm, or maybe it was 72, can't honestly say that I remember, and I
>>> have absolutely no intention of following their guide lines. I do feel
>>> sorry for the generation after me, they will be the ones locked into life
>>> long slavery to the state.
>>
>> You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
>> expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
>> long slavery to the state", right?
>>
>> Increased longevity is one of the reasons for the problem.
>
>I have no idea about SS since I'm not american. But from the perspective
>of my country, when it was started the taxes were lower, pensions better,
>and you could walk the streets without getting shot.
>
>Today the taxes are doubled, the pension age increases every year, and you
>risk getting shot to death on the street.

Today, in the USA, income taxes are as low as they've been since, well,
perhaps before WW2. The decreases in revenue due to tax cuts
began in 1981 and were seriously cut in 2016, leading in a large
part to the current deficits.

The pension age hasn't increased but once (from 65 to 67) since
the social security system was created.

The hyperbole about getting shot is so ridiculous that it's not
even worth responding.

The hyperbole about working until 71 is just that. One is eligable
to draw SS at 62, albeit since one'd be drawing longer, the amount
is less than it would be at full retirement (67) age. If you are
able to wait longer to start SS, the monthly payment increases each
year you wait, up until 72 when you must start taking it (and start
taking RMDs if you have deferred income accounts).

If the social security fund had been invested, rather than being
used to cover tax cuts and overspending, it would be sufficient to
support future retirements without any modifications.

The disappearance of private pensions by corporations starting
in the late 1980s, also has put pressure on the social security
system - a freebee for the corporations - push retirement costs
completely on the government, leading to more and more arcane
mechanisms to enrich wallstreet (401k, IRA, Roth IRA, etc)
without necessarily providing sure income to the recipients.

[D]

On Sat, 11 May 2024, Scott Lurndal wrote:

> D <***@example.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, 11 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 10:54:55 +0200, D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>>>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>>>>
>>>>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, just like reality.
>>>>>
>>>>> USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I wait
>>>>> until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month. That is an
>>>>> amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a hit man
>>>>> instead, much cheaper.
>>>>>
>>>>> Supposedly Social Security and Medicare are going to hit $2 trillion / year
>>>>> each in 2030. That is an incredible amount of money.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lynn
>>>>
>>>> Amazing! My local SS-organization (pun intended) expect me to work until
>>>> I'm 71! Hmm, or maybe it was 72, can't honestly say that I remember, and I
>>>> have absolutely no intention of following their guide lines. I do feel
>>>> sorry for the generation after me, they will be the ones locked into life
>>>> long slavery to the state.
>>>
>>> You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
>>> expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
>>> long slavery to the state", right?
>>>
>>> Increased longevity is one of the reasons for the problem.
>>
>> I have no idea about SS since I'm not american. But from the perspective
>> of my country, when it was started the taxes were lower, pensions better,
>> and you could walk the streets without getting shot.
>>
>> Today the taxes are doubled, the pension age increases every year, and you
>> risk getting shot to death on the street.
>
> Today, in the USA, income taxes are as low as they've been since, well,
> perhaps before WW2. The decreases in revenue due to tax cuts
> began in 1981 and were seriously cut in 2016, leading in a large
> part to the current deficits.
>
> The pension age hasn't increased but once (from 65 to 67) since
> the social security system was created.
>
> The hyperbole about getting shot is so ridiculous that it's not
> even worth responding.
>
> The hyperbole about working until 71 is just that. One is eligable
> to draw SS at 62, albeit since one'd be drawing longer, the amount
> is less than it would be at full retirement (67) age. If you are
> able to wait longer to start SS, the monthly payment increases each
> year you wait, up until 72 when you must start taking it (and start
> taking RMDs if you have deferred income accounts).
>
> If the social security fund had been invested, rather than being
> used to cover tax cuts and overspending, it would be sufficient to
> support future retirements without any modifications.
>
> The disappearance of private pensions by corporations starting
> in the late 1980s, also has put pressure on the social security
> system - a freebee for the corporations - push retirement costs
> completely on the government, leading to more and more arcane
> mechanisms to enrich wallstreet (401k, IRA, Roth IRA, etc)
> without necessarily providing sure income to the recipients.

Thank you scott, I actually appreciate the information since what I wrote
is from a swedish perspective and not a US perspective. If what you're
saying is true, it does, in my opinion, shift the needle a tiny bit in
your direction.

[Scott Dorsey]

D <***@example.net> wrote:
>
>Thank you scott, I actually appreciate the information since what I wrote
>is from a swedish perspective and not a US perspective. If what you're
>saying is true, it does, in my opinion, shift the needle a tiny bit in
>your direction.

There is hardly any comparison between the US and Swedish systems. The
Swedish system was designed for universal coverage by people who realized
that keeping people alive and well was good for the economy in the end.
It's got some issues but I am just shocked at the good condition of people
when I visit Sweden.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[D]

On Tue, 13 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> Thank you scott, I actually appreciate the information since what I wrote
>> is from a swedish perspective and not a US perspective. If what you're
>> saying is true, it does, in my opinion, shift the needle a tiny bit in
>> your direction.
>
> There is hardly any comparison between the US and Swedish systems. The
> Swedish system was designed for universal coverage by people who realized
> that keeping people alive and well was good for the economy in the end.
> It's got some issues but I am just shocked at the good condition of people
> when I visit Sweden.
> --scott
>

That's not my view of things, having lived in sweden for at least 2
decades. Can you tell me more of what you experienced in sweden?

Needless to say, there is a reason I moved to another country, and that is
because swedens systems are comind apart and society is breaking up. In
sweden people will stay wage slaves until they are 72 unless they are part
of the golden generation born after WW2 who basically stole everything and
left debts to the rest.

[Scott Dorsey]

D <***@example.net> wrote:
>That's not my view of things, having lived in sweden for at least 2
>decades. Can you tell me more of what you experienced in sweden?

I didn't see any homeless people. Of all the people that I met on the
street or in the grocery store, I think I saw only one or two with obvious
untreated major medical conditions. I have friends who have fairly
low-paying jobs and they don't worry from day to day about whether they
will keep their job and whether their apartment will still be available
tomorrow. In doubtful neighborhoods in Stockholm and Gothenburg nobody
came up to me trying to sell me an empty spray can or a stolen cellphone.

Admittedly I have only been for a few months in a couple cities and in
the country near Varberg, but compared with Italy and large chunks of the
US, things seemed stable and well-run.

>Needless to say, there is a reason I moved to another country, and that is
>because swedens systems are comind apart and society is breaking up. In
>sweden people will stay wage slaves until they are 72 unless they are part
>of the golden generation born after WW2 who basically stole everything and
>left debts to the rest.

Is there any place in the world that isn't that way? But I'd rather be a
secure wage slave than an insecure one.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[D]

On Wed, 14 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> D <***@example.net> wrote:
>> That's not my view of things, having lived in sweden for at least 2
>> decades. Can you tell me more of what you experienced in sweden?
>
> I didn't see any homeless people. Of all the people that I met on the

Come to Stockholm and I can show you plenty of homeless people. There's an
invasion of gypsies who earn their living by begging, selling drugs,
stealing and prostitution. There's also the odd mentally ill person and
drug addict in the subway walking from subway car to subway car.

There's been an increase the last couple of decades.

> street or in the grocery store, I think I saw only one or two with obvious
> untreated major medical conditions. I have friends who have fairly

This is tricky. I've been to the US more times than I can imagine, and
when I see crazy people on the street I don't know if they have untreated
medical conditions or not. Is that what you mean? Mental illness?

> low-paying jobs and they don't worry from day to day about whether they
> will keep their job and whether their apartment will still be available

This is true, in my opinion, compared with the US. In sweden, salaries are
low, and workers rights are so strong that companies are less and less
competitive internationally. If you're crafty you can live your entire
life on government money. Many immigrants from the middle east could net
3000 EUR per month in government money for decades.

That is what paying the worlds highest taxes brings you.

> tomorrow. In doubtful neighborhoods in Stockholm and Gothenburg nobody
> came up to me trying to sell me an empty spray can or a stolen cellphone.

Has never happened to me in the US either. But! I have not been to the US
for at least 5 years and I mostly visited Chicago, Las Vegas, Boston and
Orlando, so could be that other cities I never visited have these
problems.

In sweden, if you want to buy stolen phones or drugs, you do it through
tiktok or whatsapp. The dealers don't want to get caught, so you won't
find them on the street corner but more online. Also goes for
prostitution.

> Admittedly I have only been for a few months in a couple cities and in
> the country near Varberg, but compared with Italy and large chunks of the
> US, things seemed stable and well-run.

I give you this. I think swedens public sector is better run than italys.
It is way more wasteful, there's more dead-meat in the form of people who
do nothing in the public sector all their life, but on the whole, it kind
of works, although services have gotten a lot worse the last couple of
decades.

>> Needless to say, there is a reason I moved to another country, and that is
>> because swedens systems are comind apart and society is breaking up. In
>> sweden people will stay wage slaves until they are 72 unless they are part
>> of the golden generation born after WW2 who basically stole everything and
>> left debts to the rest.
>
> Is there any place in the world that isn't that way? But I'd rather be a
> secure wage slave than an insecure one.

Being a secure wage slave is a short step away from being a secure slave.
It is so far away from my core values to build my life around safety, that
it is difficult to describe.

I'd much rather be free than safe. But, this is a matter of taste, and to
a certain amount, of economics. Science has shown that economically free
societies are better off in the long run, than socialist planned
economies.

But, yes, the socialist planned economies were "safer", but that's a
safety I would never want in my life. I value being free and doing what I
want with my life too much for any amount of safety.

Oh, and just to be clear, safe/unsafe does not mean taking stupid risks,
but I think that should be obvious. But just pointing out to be clear.

[Scott Dorsey]

D <***@example.net> wrote:
>Come to Stockholm and I can show you plenty of homeless people. There's an
>invasion of gypsies who earn their living by begging, selling drugs,
>stealing and prostitution. There's also the odd mentally ill person and
>drug addict in the subway walking from subway car to subway car.

That's fine. Those folks will always be with us. I am talking about people
who have jobs but live in their car or in a tent city because making minimum
wage even as a hard worker is not enough for them to be able to afford a
studio apartment.

>
>> street or in the grocery store, I think I saw only one or two with obvious
>> untreated major medical conditions. I have friends who have fairly
>
>This is tricky. I've been to the US more times than I can imagine, and
>when I see crazy people on the street I don't know if they have untreated
>medical conditions or not. Is that what you mean? Mental illness?

No, although that is a thing that is more of a problem in the US than in
most European countries. I am thinking about people with physical issues.
Take a trip on the city bus here, and you'll see people with goiters,
contagious pink eye, untreated skin infections, etc. Often things that
would not be difficult or expensive to cure. How the hell do people get
goiters in the 21st century anyway?

>> Is there any place in the world that isn't that way? But I'd rather be a
>> secure wage slave than an insecure one.
>
>Being a secure wage slave is a short step away from being a secure slave.
>It is so far away from my core values to build my life around safety, that
>it is difficult to describe.

I've been unsafe enough that I do tend to value safety. Not to the
exclusion of everything else, but I'd like for other people not to have to
go through some of what I went through. And I am okay paying a little more
taxes for that.

I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their
share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely
different from place to place.

>I'd much rather be free than safe. But, this is a matter of taste, and to
>a certain amount, of economics. Science has shown that economically free
>societies are better off in the long run, than socialist planned
>economies.

You're saying one extreme is better than the other. But there are a huge,
huge number of possibilities between those two extremes and most of them
are better than either one. Exactly where in that range is optimal is
something that can be argued about because people differ.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[D]

On Mon, 19 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> D <***@example.net> wrote:
>> Come to Stockholm and I can show you plenty of homeless people. There's an
>> invasion of gypsies who earn their living by begging, selling drugs,
>> stealing and prostitution. There's also the odd mentally ill person and
>> drug addict in the subway walking from subway car to subway car.
>
> That's fine. Those folks will always be with us. I am talking about people
> who have jobs but live in their car or in a tent city because making minimum
> wage even as a hard worker is not enough for them to be able to afford a
> studio apartment.

Ahh ok. I understand. No, this I have not seen in Stockholm nor in any
other european city. I have seen it outside the cities though, usually in
the country side.

>>> street or in the grocery store, I think I saw only one or two with obvious
>>> untreated major medical conditions. I have friends who have fairly
>>
>> This is tricky. I've been to the US more times than I can imagine, and
>> when I see crazy people on the street I don't know if they have untreated
>> medical conditions or not. Is that what you mean? Mental illness?
>
> No, although that is a thing that is more of a problem in the US than in
> most European countries. I am thinking about people with physical issues.
> Take a trip on the city bus here, and you'll see people with goiters,
> contagious pink eye, untreated skin infections, etc. Often things that
> would not be difficult or expensive to cure. How the hell do people get
> goiters in the 21st century anyway?

Ahh, I see. Based on my experience, I agree with you. Granted, I don't
watch too close in public transport, but no, not that many medical
problems except for gypsies who illegally immigrated from romania who use
it to get more sympathy while begging in the streets.

>>> Is there any place in the world that isn't that way? But I'd rather be a
>>> secure wage slave than an insecure one.
>>
>> Being a secure wage slave is a short step away from being a secure slave.
>> It is so far away from my core values to build my life around safety, that
>> it is difficult to describe.
>
> I've been unsafe enough that I do tend to value safety. Not to the
> exclusion of everything else, but I'd like for other people not to have to
> go through some of what I went through. And I am okay paying a little more
> taxes for that.
>
> I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their
> share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely
> different from place to place.

If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your
position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.

This is the great irony of the anarcho-capitalist position. Socialists and
communists are more than welcome to live in an anarcho-capitalist world,
as long as they force no one to live with them, but like minded people,
pelase go ahead.

I, however, am not allowed to live in the socialists world, because then
I'll be thrown in prison. I think this is a very clear example of the
difference between an ideology of freedom and one of authoritarianism.

>> I'd much rather be free than safe. But, this is a matter of taste, and to
>> a certain amount, of economics. Science has shown that economically free
>> societies are better off in the long run, than socialist planned
>> economies.
>
> You're saying one extreme is better than the other. But there are a huge,
> huge number of possibilities between those two extremes and most of them
> are better than either one. Exactly where in that range is optimal is
> something that can be argued about because people differ.
> --scott

I think you are way too adult and mature to have a good, honest, "trolly"
discussion with! Yes, it is not a binary question, you are of course
right.

[Scott Dorsey]

D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their
>> share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely
>> different from place to place.
>
>If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your
>position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.

Because I am human, and humans get resentful when they feel like they are
being treated unfairly. (Lazarus Long had something to say about this.)
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[D]

On Tue, 21 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their
>>> share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely
>>> different from place to place.
>>
>> If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your
>> position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.
>
> Because I am human, and humans get resentful when they feel like they are
> being treated unfairly. (Lazarus Long had something to say about this.)
> --scott
>

So you are saying that the only reason you like paying taxes is if all
other people around you are forced to do so as well.

If no one was forced to pay taxes, you would be equally happy, because no
one would be forced?

It is therefore more important to you that everybody should be equal, than
any positive effects you would derive from unequal treatment?

[Scott Dorsey]

D <***@example.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 21 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>
>> D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I am okay paying my share of taxes, as long as everyone else is paying their
>>>> share too, and I used to think most people are like that. It's definitely
>>>> different from place to place.
>>>
>>> If you think taxes go towards a good thing, why would it change your
>>> position if others pay or don't pay? Your money still does good.
>>
>> Because I am human, and humans get resentful when they feel like they are
>> being treated unfairly. (Lazarus Long had something to say about this.)
>
>So you are saying that the only reason you like paying taxes is if all
>other people around you are forced to do so as well.

No, that is not what I am saying. You are asserting the contrapositive.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

Scott Lurndal <***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>Today, in the USA, income taxes are as low as they've been since, well,
>perhaps before WW2. The decreases in revenue due to tax cuts
>began in 1981 and were seriously cut in 2016, leading in a large
>part to the current deficits.

Indeed, although it should be pointed out that this is most dramatic at
the higher levels, where the highest tax rates have been capped long ago.

However, it should be pointed out that although reductions in tax rates
were not combined with increases in productivity like Mr. Reagan
predicted and this has increased the deficit a lot... the actual source of
much of that initial deficit comes from overspending on the War on Vietnam.

>The pension age hasn't increased but once (from 65 to 67) since
>the social security system was created.

The Social Security system is supposed to be kept independent from the
general budget and so Social Security witholding isn't supposed to be
a tax. Unfortunately due to some fiddling with the budget in the eighties,
it has become that way. Fixing this should be a priority, and without
fixing it, it can be hard to figure out what the real deficit is.

>The hyperbole about getting shot is so ridiculous that it's not
>even worth responding.

I dunno. I got shot on the street minding my own business. Mind you, it
was by a police officer, so that might not be quite what the original
poster was thinking.

>If the social security fund had been invested, rather than being
>used to cover tax cuts and overspending, it would be sufficient to
>support future retirements without any modifications.

Bingo.

>The disappearance of private pensions by corporations starting
>in the late 1980s, also has put pressure on the social security
>system - a freebee for the corporations - push retirement costs
>completely on the government, leading to more and more arcane
>mechanisms to enrich wallstreet (401k, IRA, Roth IRA, etc)
>without necessarily providing sure income to the recipients.

Yes. The Social Security program was intended to be a safety net
in order to cover people who fell between the cracks. It was not
intended to be a universal pension but when it got to the point
where the country needed a universal pension, it became one.
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <v1u767$ei8$***@panix2.panix.com>,
Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
>Scott Lurndal <***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>Today, in the USA, income taxes are as low as they've been since, well,
>>perhaps before WW2. The decreases in revenue due to tax cuts
>>began in 1981 and were seriously cut in 2016, leading in a large
>>part to the current deficits.
>
>Indeed, although it should be pointed out that this is most dramatic at
>the higher levels, where the highest tax rates have been capped long ago.
>

What decreases in revenue? Here are the OECD figures for US Tax Revenue
from 1965 through 2022 (https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REVUSA):

1965 167 022
1966 186 065
1967 208 577
1968 218 623
1969 261 468
1970 276 727
1971 278 738
1972 313 091
1973 348 794
1974 389 542
1975 415 386
1976 450 017
1977 525 970
1978 588 261
1979 662 519
1980 730 672
1981 832 930
1982 871 205
1983 872 628
1984 973 472
1985 1 069 914
1986 1 127 958
1987 1 247 323
1988 1 334 154
1989 1 447 778
1990 1 552 413
1991 1 592 211
1992 1 678 736
1993 1 779 819
1994 1 915 493
1995 2 028 327
1996 2 183 329
1997 2 357 489
1998 2 525 496
1999 2 690 195
2000 2 900 519
2001 2 884 730
2002 2 733 431
2003 2 805 008
2004 3 025 257
2005 3 402 866
2006 3 699 160
2007 3 868 612
2008 3 787 415
2009 3 317 018
2010 3 517 144
2011 3 706 690
2012 3 887 233
2013 4 291 752
2014 4 542 584
2015 4 773 680
2016 4 837 633
2017 5 192 729
2018 5 131 484
2019 5 372 512
2020 5 419 799
2021 6 178 036
2022 7 041 876

The problem is not revenue, or tax cuts decreasing revenue.
The government just spends too much.

--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Paul S Person]

On 14 May 2024 02:42:11 GMT, ***@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
<tednolan>) wrote:

>In article <v1u767$ei8$***@panix2.panix.com>,
>Scott Dorsey <***@panix.com> wrote:
>>Scott Lurndal <***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>Today, in the USA, income taxes are as low as they've been since, well,
>>>perhaps before WW2. The decreases in revenue due to tax cuts
>>>began in 1981 and were seriously cut in 2016, leading in a large
>>>part to the current deficits.
>>
>>Indeed, although it should be pointed out that this is most dramatic at
>>the higher levels, where the highest tax rates have been capped long ago.
>>
>
>What decreases in revenue? Here are the OECD figures for US Tax Revenue
>from 1965 through 2022 (https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=REVUSA):
>
>1965 167 022
>1966 186 065
>1967 208 577
>1968 218 623
>1969 261 468
>1970 276 727
>1971 278 738
>1972 313 091
>1973 348 794
>1974 389 542
>1975 415 386
>1976 450 017
>1977 525 970
>1978 588 261
>1979 662 519
>1980 730 672
>1981 832 930
>1982 871 205
>1983 872 628
>1984 973 472
>1985 1 069 914
>1986 1 127 958
>1987 1 247 323
>1988 1 334 154
>1989 1 447 778
>1990 1 552 413
>1991 1 592 211
>1992 1 678 736
>1993 1 779 819
>1994 1 915 493
>1995 2 028 327
>1996 2 183 329
>1997 2 357 489
>1998 2 525 496
>1999 2 690 195
>2000 2 900 519
>2001 2 884 730
>2002 2 733 431
>2003 2 805 008
>2004 3 025 257
>2005 3 402 866
>2006 3 699 160
>2007 3 868 612
>2008 3 787 415
>2009 3 317 018
>2010 3 517 144
>2011 3 706 690
>2012 3 887 233
>2013 4 291 752
>2014 4 542 584
>2015 4 773 680
>2016 4 837 633
>2017 5 192 729
>2018 5 131 484
>2019 5 372 512
>2020 5 419 799
>2021 6 178 036
>2022 7 041 876
>
>The problem is not revenue, or tax cuts decreasing revenue.
>The government just spends too much.

The problem is more likely to be that you are not adjusting for
inflation.

But let's wait until those 5M auditors the Republicans are whining
about get done getting the Republicans' rich buddies to pay the
/correct/ amount of tax for the past six years or so and see what
/that/ produces.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[Paul S Person]

On 13 May 2024 23:19:35 -0000, ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Scott Lurndal <***@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>Today, in the USA, income taxes are as low as they've been since, well,
>>perhaps before WW2. The decreases in revenue due to tax cuts
>>began in 1981 and were seriously cut in 2016, leading in a large
>>part to the current deficits.
>
>Indeed, although it should be pointed out that this is most dramatic at
>the higher levels, where the highest tax rates have been capped long ago.
>
>However, it should be pointed out that although reductions in tax rates
>were not combined with increases in productivity like Mr. Reagan
>predicted and this has increased the deficit a lot... the actual source of
>much of that initial deficit comes from overspending on the War on Vietnam.

This is an interesting
page:<https://www.investopedia.com/us-national-debt-by-year-7499291>

1980 $ 908 (billions, rounded)
1988 $2,602 (billions, rounded)

which is not what I have been led to believe, but it still tripled
under Reagan.

This is, of course, ignoring inflation.

>>The pension age hasn't increased but once (from 65 to 67) since
>>the social security system was created.
>
>The Social Security system is supposed to be kept independent from the
>general budget and so Social Security witholding isn't supposed to be
>a tax. Unfortunately due to some fiddling with the budget in the eighties,
>it has become that way. Fixing this should be a priority, and without
>fixing it, it can be hard to figure out what the real deficit is.

The only way to fix it for for Congress to /pay the money back/ to
Social Security. Since neither Party appears willing to do /that/, the
remaining solutions will all turn out to be unacceptable, so far as I
can tell.

"Unacceptable" here means that /the voters won't like them/. And
riled-up voters are a force to be, if not reckoned with, at least
appeased.

>>The hyperbole about getting shot is so ridiculous that it's not
>>even worth responding.
>
>I dunno. I got shot on the street minding my own business. Mind you, it
>was by a police officer, so that might not be quite what the original
>poster was thinking.
>
>>If the social security fund had been invested, rather than being
>>used to cover tax cuts and overspending, it would be sufficient to
>>support future retirements without any modifications.
>
>Bingo.
>
>>The disappearance of private pensions by corporations starting
>>in the late 1980s, also has put pressure on the social security
>>system - a freebee for the corporations - push retirement costs
>>completely on the government, leading to more and more arcane
>>mechanisms to enrich wallstreet (401k, IRA, Roth IRA, etc)
>>without necessarily providing sure income to the recipients.
>
>Yes. The Social Security program was intended to be a safety net
>in order to cover people who fell between the cracks. It was not
>intended to be a universal pension but when it got to the point
>where the country needed a universal pension, it became one.

Alternately, since pretty much everyone contributed to it (or at least
was supposed to be doing so) and would eventually draw it, it
inevitably became a part of Retirement Planning, affecting any other
parts (penstions, IRAs/401(k)s, etc) by reducing how much income they
had to produce.

Sort of like of Earned Income Credit supports not paying adequate
wages because the gummint makes up (some) of the difference.

For a brief period, I "chased refunds" (as we called it) for the IRS.
I encountered people whose entire year was based on working for, to be
fair, most of the year and then get their EIC-enhanced refund and live
on that for a few months. They were /very/ unhappy when a glitch
occurred and the refund was delayed.

And, no, they weren't schoolteachers.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[The Horny Goat]

On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:23 -0700, Paul S Person
<***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
>expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
>long slavery to the state", right?
>
When Otto von Bismarck invented the old age pension the average male
life expectancy was 69 so on average pensioners lasted 4 years.
Obviously life expectancy is much longer now.

As for $4k per month, I was notified my entitlement was $1600/mo and
that was Canuck bucks too....

[Paul S Person]

On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:29:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:23 -0700, Paul S Person
><***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>
>>You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
>>expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
>>long slavery to the state", right?
>>
>When Otto von Bismarck invented the old age pension the average male
>life expectancy was 69 so on average pensioners lasted 4 years.
>Obviously life expectancy is much longer now.

Exactly. As health and longevity improve, retirement age must rise to
keep the finances under control. Which means people must work longer.
Which is very ... tiresome.

>As for $4k per month, I was notified my entitlement was $1600/mo and
>that was Canuck bucks too....

Different systems, different rules.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[James Nicoll]

In article <***@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:29:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:23 -0700, Paul S Person
>><***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
>>>expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
>>>long slavery to the state", right?
>>>
>>When Otto von Bismarck invented the old age pension the average male
>>life expectancy was 69 so on average pensioners lasted 4 years.
>>Obviously life expectancy is much longer now.
>
>Exactly. As health and longevity improve, retirement age must rise to
>keep the finances under control. Which means people must work longer.
>Which is very ... tiresome.

This is a solved problem. Expected American lifespan dropped from 79
in 2019 to 76 in 2021. Since trends can be extended without limit,
it follows that US lifespans will keep dropping by a year per year
until 2098, when it reach be zero.


--
My reviews can be found at http://jamesdavisnicoll.com/
My tor pieces at https://www.tor.com/author/james-davis-nicoll/
My Dreamwidth at https://james-davis-nicoll.dreamwidth.org/
My patreon is at https://www.patreon.com/jamesdnicoll

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 14 May 2024 16:00:11 -0000 (UTC), ***@panix.com (James
Nicoll) wrote:

>In article <***@4ax.com>,
>Paul S Person <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:29:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:23 -0700, Paul S Person
>>><***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
>>>>expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
>>>>long slavery to the state", right?
>>>>
>>>When Otto von Bismarck invented the old age pension the average male
>>>life expectancy was 69 so on average pensioners lasted 4 years.
>>>Obviously life expectancy is much longer now.
>>
>>Exactly. As health and longevity improve, retirement age must rise to
>>keep the finances under control. Which means people must work longer.
>>Which is very ... tiresome.
>
>This is a solved problem. Expected American lifespan dropped from 79
>in 2019 to 76 in 2021. Since trends can be extended without limit,
>it follows that US lifespans will keep dropping by a year per year
>until 2098, when it reach be zero.

Huh. I'm 77. I've exceeded expectations!

More seriously, when I retired OPM was kind enough to compute the
pro-rated refund of the amount I contributed to the pension. This is
because the money I contributed was taxed going in and so not taxable
coming out.

That is, each month a certain amount of what I get is not taxable.
Using that amount and the total contribution it is easy to compute
what I presume to have been my life expectancy, per OPM, back when I
retired (nearly 20 years ago now): 84.5. Not quite a 1yr/yr drop over
nearly 20 years. But perhaps the rate of decrease is accelerating ...
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[D]

On Tue, 14 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

> On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:29:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:23 -0700, Paul S Person
>> <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
>>> expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
>>> long slavery to the state", right?
>>>
>> When Otto von Bismarck invented the old age pension the average male
>> life expectancy was 69 so on average pensioners lasted 4 years.
>> Obviously life expectancy is much longer now.
>
> Exactly. As health and longevity improve, retirement age must rise to
> keep the finances under control. Which means people must work longer.
> Which is very ... tiresome.

No, you can change the assumptions, funding, or invest the money more
wisely. What you are saying is just tired platitudes from politicians who
are funded by the tax payers seeking the easy way out.

Modern citizens in western european countries are nothing more but wage
slaves who exist to feed the public sector.

I think the most sustainable way forward is to abolish social security and
let everyone take care of themselves.

>> As for $4k per month, I was notified my entitlement was $1600/mo and
>> that was Canuck bucks too....
>
> Different systems, different rules.
>

[Paul S Person]

On Tue, 14 May 2024 21:19:48 +0200, D <***@example.net> wrote:

>
>
>On Tue, 14 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 13 May 2024 12:29:17 -0700, The Horny Goat <***@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 11 May 2024 08:53:23 -0700, Paul S Person
>>> <***@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> You do realize that, when Social Security started, the average life
>>>> expectancy was such that those eligible for it were "locked into life
>>>> long slavery to the state", right?
>>>>
>>> When Otto von Bismarck invented the old age pension the average male
>>> life expectancy was 69 so on average pensioners lasted 4 years.
>>> Obviously life expectancy is much longer now.
>>
>> Exactly. As health and longevity improve, retirement age must rise to
>> keep the finances under control. Which means people must work longer.
>> Which is very ... tiresome.
>
>No, you can change the assumptions, funding, or invest the money more
>wisely. What you are saying is just tired platitudes from politicians who
>are funded by the tax payers seeking the easy way out.

No amount of increased funding or investments will work if the number
of years you must pay out steadily increases. Especially if, as at
present and for some time past, a really large generation such as the
Boomers are retiring.

That's part of the problem: not enough workers even /exist/ to pay in
to provide enough to pay out. There are also shortages of staff in the
sort of things old people need most: caregivers. There just aren't
enough non-old people to go around. Well, except by importing them
from other countries. Whereupon the Republicans scream because it gets
them votes.

>Modern citizens in western european countries are nothing more but wage
>slaves who exist to feed the public sector.

And you think Egypt or Assyria or Chaldaea or the Medes/Persians or
Rome were any better?

And what makes you think this applies only to Western Europe? Were
people better off under the Communists in the East? Has Japan ceased
to try to work its employees to death?

>I think the most sustainable way forward is to abolish social security and
>let everyone take care of themselves.

That's not how it works in traditional cultures.

Adults, with a life expectancy of 60 or so, would find themselves in
their 40s supporting both their children and their aged parents. This
is expected of them -- indeed, it is part of "honor your father and
your mother".

Only 1%-ers can afford to take care of themselves. Everybody else
depends on people they do not own outright.

>>> As for $4k per month, I was notified my entitlement was $1600/mo and
>>> that was Canuck bucks too....
>>
>> Different systems, different rules.
>>
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[D]

On Wed, 15 May 2024, Paul S Person wrote:

>> No, you can change the assumptions, funding, or invest the money more
>> wisely. What you are saying is just tired platitudes from politicians who
>> are funded by the tax payers seeking the easy way out.
>
> No amount of increased funding or investments will work if the number
> of years you must pay out steadily increases. Especially if, as at
> present and for some time past, a really large generation such as the
> Boomers are retiring.

Depends on how you fund it, the ROI and especially on how prices and
cost of living decrease if we avoid politics and focus on technology and
optimizing processes.

> That's part of the problem: not enough workers even /exist/ to pay in
> to provide enough to pay out. There are also shortages of staff in the
> sort of things old people need most: caregivers. There just aren't
> enough non-old people to go around. Well, except by importing them
> from other countries. Whereupon the Republicans scream because it gets
> them votes.

See above.

>> Modern citizens in western european countries are nothing more but wage
>> slaves who exist to feed the public sector.
>
> And you think Egypt or Assyria or Chaldaea or the Medes/Persians or
> Rome were any better?

Does not compute.

> And what makes you think this applies only to Western Europe? Were
> people better off under the Communists in the East? Has Japan ceased
> to try to work its employees to death?

Did I say it did?

>> I think the most sustainable way forward is to abolish social security and
>> let everyone take care of themselves.
>
> That's not how it works in traditional cultures.

Things can change. If tradition is seen as a reason not to change, we'd
still be living in caves.

> Adults, with a life expectancy of 60 or so, would find themselves in
> their 40s supporting both their children and their aged parents. This
> is expected of them -- indeed, it is part of "honor your father and
> your mother".

I don't understand.

> Only 1%-ers can afford to take care of themselves. Everybody else
> depends on people they do not own outright.

Incorrect. It depends on education, technology, discipline and how the
money is managed.

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 10 May 2024 15:16:12 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>
>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>
>Yup, just like reality.
>
>USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I
>wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.
>That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a
>hit man instead, much cheaper.

Before I retired, I referred to such letters as "the annual lie". But
when I created a spreadsheet to compute what the benefit should be ...
I found that the letters were pretty darn accurate.

>Supposedly Social Security and Medicare are going to hit $2 trillion /
>year each in 2030. That is an incredible amount of money.

That's two different things, not functionally linked to each other,
but of course you knew that.

A trillion here, a trillion there -- pretty soon you're talking about
/real/ money.

It's all a matter of perspective. And longevity. And inflation. And
Congress (both parties, BTW).
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/11/2024 10:57 AM, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2024 15:16:12 -0500, Lynn McGuire
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/10/2024 1:46 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
>>> Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> writes:
>>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>>> apocalypse of the USA
>>>
>>> More dystopian fiction. Talk about depressing.
>>
>> Yup, just like reality.
>>
>> USA Social Security sent me a letter the other day and said that if I
>> wait until I am 67 to start taking SS, they will give me $4,000/month.
>> That is an amazing number. I am wondering that they are going to send a
>> hit man instead, much cheaper.
>
> Before I retired, I referred to such letters as "the annual lie". But
> when I created a spreadsheet to compute what the benefit should be ...
> I found that the letters were pretty darn accurate.
>
>> Supposedly Social Security and Medicare are going to hit $2 trillion /
>> year each in 2030. That is an incredible amount of money.
>
> That's two different things, not functionally linked to each other,
> but of course you knew that.
>
> A trillion here, a trillion there -- pretty soon you're talking about
> /real/ money.
>
> It's all a matter of perspective. And longevity. And inflation. And
> Congress (both parties, BTW).

One of my friends used to call the USA Congress "The Two Halves Of The
War Party". He would know, he did five tours in Vietnam as USA Air
Force Military Police. Before he passed, he acknowledged that may not
have been the best career choice at the time.

Lynn

[D]

On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> For those who are interested in the future long term financial apocalypse of
> the USA, I recommend reading “The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047” by Lionel
> Shriver:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
>
> For those who do not like Lionel Shriver, I recommend “Distraction" by Bruce
> Sterling:
> https://www.amazon.com/Distraction-Bruce-Sterling/dp/1857989287/
>
> For those who just want a short term financial apocalypse of the USA, I
> recommend “Buck Out” by Ken Benton:
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1514666979/
>
> Lynn
>

For those of us who are interested, but not ready to pick up a book, what
do you think will happen?

[Scott Dorsey]

D <***@example.net> wrote:
>
>For those of us who are interested, but not ready to pick up a book, what
>do you think will happen?

I highly recommend the film Americathon, with John Ritter, for those who
are interested in a great view of a Federal financial apocalypse.


"I ain't a bad guy. I just want my fifteen billion dollars back. I gotta
eat too, you know?"
-- the man owning the Federal Debt


--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/10/2024 4:10 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
> D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> For those of us who are interested, but not ready to pick up a book, what
>> do you think will happen?
>
> I highly recommend the film Americathon, with John Ritter, for those who
> are interested in a great view of a Federal financial apocalypse.
>
>
> "I ain't a bad guy. I just want my fifteen billion dollars back. I gotta
> eat too, you know?"
> -- the man owning the Federal Debt
>
>
> --scott

I have never even heard of this movie. There is a trailer.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyD4y_HkZwY

It looks like a present day version of Idiocracy.

Lynn

[Ted Nolan <tednolan>]

In article <v1m352$1ikrf$***@dont-email.me>,
Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 5/10/2024 4:10 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> For those of us who are interested, but not ready to pick up a book, what
>>> do you think will happen?
>>
>> I highly recommend the film Americathon, with John Ritter, for those who
>> are interested in a great view of a Federal financial apocalypse.
>>
>>
>> "I ain't a bad guy. I just want my fifteen billion dollars back. I gotta
>> eat too, you know?"
>> -- the man owning the Federal Debt
>>
>>
>> --scott
>
>I have never even heard of this movie. There is a trailer.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyD4y_HkZwY
>
>It looks like a present day version of Idiocracy.

Notable mainly for a mediocre late Beach Boys song during their
labelless period, and before Kokomo.
--
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..

[Scott Dorsey]

Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote:
(with regard to Americathon)
>
>I have never even heard of this movie. There is a trailer.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyD4y_HkZwY
>
>It looks like a present day version of Idiocracy.

The premise is kind of different, and basically takes the 1970s oil crisis
a bit farther. I saw it in a theatre when it came out and at some point
when I was running the Arisia film program I was able to get a 35mm print
of it from the archives and a lot of people talked about how they'd seen it
as kids but that the film seems to have disappeared.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Bice]

On 11 May 2024 11:24:22 -0000, ***@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Lynn McGuire <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> (with regard to Americathon)
>>
>>I have never even heard of this movie. There is a trailer.
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyD4y_HkZwY
>>
>>It looks like a present day version of Idiocracy.
>
>The premise is kind of different, and basically takes the 1970s oil crisis
>a bit farther. I saw it in a theatre when it came out and at some point
>when I was running the Arisia film program I was able to get a 35mm print
>of it from the archives and a lot of people talked about how they'd seen it
>as kids but that the film seems to have disappeared.

It's available on DVD:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B004G14XN4/

I've had it on my Amazon wishlist for years, hoping someone would get
it for me for Christmas. I saw Americathon on cable a bunch of times
when I was around 13 or 14 years old and loved it. Don't know how
well it would hold up, but I'd like to see it again someday.

-- Bob

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 10 May 2024 16:21:37 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/10/2024 4:10 PM, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>> D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> For those of us who are interested, but not ready to pick up a book, what
>>> do you think will happen?
>>
>> I highly recommend the film Americathon, with John Ritter, for those who
>> are interested in a great view of a Federal financial apocalypse.
>>
>>
>> "I ain't a bad guy. I just want my fifteen billion dollars back. I gotta
>> eat too, you know?"
>> -- the man owning the Federal Debt
>>
>>
>> --scott
>
>I have never even heard of this movie. There is a trailer.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jyD4y_HkZwY
>
>It looks like a present day version of Idiocracy.

FWIW, Maltin rates it a BOMB. This suggests that it may not be very
well done.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[D]

On Fri, 10 May 2024, Scott Dorsey wrote:

> D <***@example.net> wrote:
>>
>> For those of us who are interested, but not ready to pick up a book, what
>> do you think will happen?
>
> I highly recommend the film Americathon, with John Ritter, for those who
> are interested in a great view of a Federal financial apocalypse.
>
>
> "I ain't a bad guy. I just want my fifteen billion dollars back. I gotta
> eat too, you know?"
> -- the man owning the Federal Debt
>
>
> --scott
>
Thank you scott, that ones on my list.

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/10/2024 3:21 PM, D wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>
>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>> apocalypse of the USA, I recommend reading “The Mandibles: A Family,
>> 2029-2047” by Lionel Shriver:
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
>>
>> For those who do not like Lionel Shriver, I recommend “Distraction" by
>> Bruce Sterling:
>>   https://www.amazon.com/Distraction-Bruce-Sterling/dp/1857989287/
>>
>> For those who just want a short term financial apocalypse of the USA,
>> I recommend “Buck Out” by Ken Benton:
>>   https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1514666979/
>>
>> Lynn
>>
>
> For those of us who are interested, but not ready to pick up a book,
> what do you think will happen?

At some point, the USA Treasury will try to sell tbills to finance the
USA debt but, there will be no buyers. The Fed will buy the tbills but
at some point this will become absurd. At that point, questions will
arise about the actual value of the USA Dollar. Especially when those
Dollars start flooding back into the USA. I do not know how many
Dollars are outside the USA but it is a significant amount.

Lynn

[D]

On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 5/10/2024 3:21 PM, D wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 10 May 2024, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>
>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial apocalypse
>>> of the USA, I recommend reading “The Mandibles: A Family, 2029-2047” by
>>> Lionel Shriver:
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
>>>
>>> For those who do not like Lionel Shriver, I recommend “Distraction" by
>>> Bruce Sterling:
>>>   https://www.amazon.com/Distraction-Bruce-Sterling/dp/1857989287/
>>>
>>> For those who just want a short term financial apocalypse of the USA, I
>>> recommend “Buck Out” by Ken Benton:
>>>   https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1514666979/
>>>
>>> Lynn
>>>
>>
>> For those of us who are interested, but not ready to pick up a book, what
>> do you think will happen?
>
> At some point, the USA Treasury will try to sell tbills to finance the USA
> debt but, there will be no buyers. The Fed will buy the tbills but at some
> point this will become absurd. At that point, questions will arise about the
> actual value of the USA Dollar. Especially when those Dollars start flooding
> back into the USA. I do not know how many Dollars are outside the USA but it
> is a significant amount.
>
> Lynn

Got it. Thank you Lynn. I think it shows how defective the political
system is. Everyone can see that it is not sustainable, but no one does
anything about it, since it's a long term question, and politics only
works with short term problems.

In dark moments I always wonder if some "rough" democract will try to grab
X% out of every bank account in order to pay off the debt and justify it
with the future of our children and our country as a stable and advanced
nation or something like that.

2 trillion is a big number, but the GDP of the US is 25.44 trillion. So
getting that number down is doable, but very painful.

Another thing that always annoys me is that countries insist on counting
debt as a percentage of GDP but that's another story.

No, you should really have a law that creates a kind of "debt ceiling"
that should solve it for the moment at least. ;)

[William Hyde]

Lynn McGuire wrote:
> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
> apocalypse of the USA, I recommend reading “The Mandibles: A Family,
> 2029-2047” by Lionel Shriver:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
>
>
> For those who do not like Lionel Shriver, I recommend “Distraction" by
> Bruce Sterling:
>    https://www.amazon.com/Distraction-Bruce-Sterling/dp/1857989287/
>
> For those who just want a short term financial apocalypse of the USA, I
> recommend “Buck Out” by Ken Benton:
>    https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1514666979/

While for a look at the real financial disasters of the past few
decades, as opposed to the imagined, I recommend some books by Micheal
Lewis

"Liar's Poker" - about his brief career as a bond trader (far more
customer-hostile than stock trading) and also the beginnings of two
ideas that didn't need to be disasters but were, junk bonds and mortgage
backed securities. You will learn why "Equities in Dallas" is an insult.

"The Big Short" - about the unscrupulous, foolish, and criminal who
caused the 2009 crisis, and those who saw it coming and profited by it,
as well as those who saw it coming and still managed to lose money.
Your money, if you are an American taxpayer.

Also why the bond rating agencies are staffed by people you wouldn't
want anywhere near your money.

"Flash boys" How the American markets were restructured to make the
process even more skewed to big money, to enable what can only be called
stealing. And about those who opposed this.

Two other books:

"A random walk down wall street" by Burton Malkiel.

If time travel ever takes you to the 60s, don't invest in anything that
ends in "tronics" unless your future knowledge tells you that this one
did well. Malkiel explains why. From the person who came up with the
idea of index funds.

"Bull" by Maggie Mahar. While I don't endorse "Dow Theory", this book
slaughters a number of sacred cows, and points out how the financial
press got almost everything about the 1990s boom wrong, and tells us
what really happened to some oft-derided characters who did (if time
travel takes you to that era, consider investing in anyone Jim Cramer
dismisses).


William Hyde

[Lynn McGuire]

On 5/10/2024 6:14 PM, William Hyde wrote:
> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>> apocalypse of the USA, I recommend reading “The Mandibles: A Family,
>> 2029-2047” by Lionel Shriver:
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
>>
>> For those who do not like Lionel Shriver, I recommend “Distraction" by
>> Bruce Sterling:
>>     https://www.amazon.com/Distraction-Bruce-Sterling/dp/1857989287/
>>
>> For those who just want a short term financial apocalypse of the USA,
>> I recommend “Buck Out” by Ken Benton:
>>     https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1514666979/
>
> While for a look at the real financial disasters of  the past few
> decades, as opposed  to the imagined, I recommend some books by Micheal
> Lewis
>
> "Liar's Poker" - about his brief career as a bond trader (far more
> customer-hostile than stock trading) and also the beginnings of two
> ideas that didn't need to be disasters but were, junk bonds and mortgage
> backed securities.  You will learn why "Equities in Dallas" is an insult.
>
> "The Big Short" - about the unscrupulous, foolish, and criminal who
> caused the 2009 crisis, and those who saw it coming and profited by it,
> as well as those who saw it coming and still managed to lose money. Your
> money, if you are an American taxpayer.
>
> Also why the bond rating agencies are staffed by people you wouldn't
> want anywhere near your money.
>
> "Flash boys"  How the American markets were restructured to make the
> process even more skewed to big money, to enable what can only be called
> stealing.  And about those who opposed this.
>
> Two other books:
>
> "A random walk down wall street" by Burton Malkiel.
>
> If time travel ever takes you to the 60s, don't invest in anything that
> ends in "tronics" unless your future knowledge tells you that this one
> did well.  Malkiel explains why.  From the person who came up with the
> idea of index funds.
>
> "Bull" by Maggie Mahar.  While I don't endorse "Dow Theory", this book
> slaughters a number of sacred cows, and points out how the financial
> press got almost everything about the 1990s boom wrong, and tells us
> what really happened to some oft-derided characters who did (if time
> travel  takes you to that era, consider investing in anyone Jim Cramer
> dismisses).
>
>
> William Hyde

I saw The Big Short movie. Pretty good.

Contrarian investing has always been popular.

Lynn

[Paul S Person]

On Fri, 10 May 2024 18:50:29 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 5/10/2024 6:14 PM, William Hyde wrote:
>> Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>> apocalypse of the USA, I recommend reading “The Mandibles: A Family,
>>> 2029-2047” by Lionel Shriver:
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
>>>
>>> For those who do not like Lionel Shriver, I recommend “Distraction" by
>>> Bruce Sterling:
>>>     https://www.amazon.com/Distraction-Bruce-Sterling/dp/1857989287/
>>>
>>> For those who just want a short term financial apocalypse of the USA,
>>> I recommend “Buck Out” by Ken Benton:
>>>     https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1514666979/
>>
>> While for a look at the real financial disasters of  the past few
>> decades, as opposed  to the imagined, I recommend some books by Micheal
>> Lewis
>>
>> "Liar's Poker" - about his brief career as a bond trader (far more
>> customer-hostile than stock trading) and also the beginnings of two
>> ideas that didn't need to be disasters but were, junk bonds and mortgage
>> backed securities.  You will learn why "Equities in Dallas" is an insult.
>>
>> "The Big Short" - about the unscrupulous, foolish, and criminal who
>> caused the 2009 crisis, and those who saw it coming and profited by it,
>> as well as those who saw it coming and still managed to lose money. Your
>> money, if you are an American taxpayer.
>>
>> Also why the bond rating agencies are staffed by people you wouldn't
>> want anywhere near your money.
>>
>> "Flash boys"  How the American markets were restructured to make the
>> process even more skewed to big money, to enable what can only be called
>> stealing.  And about those who opposed this.
>>
>> Two other books:
>>
>> "A random walk down wall street" by Burton Malkiel.
>>
>> If time travel ever takes you to the 60s, don't invest in anything that
>> ends in "tronics" unless your future knowledge tells you that this one
>> did well.  Malkiel explains why.  From the person who came up with the
>> idea of index funds.
>>
>> "Bull" by Maggie Mahar.  While I don't endorse "Dow Theory", this book
>> slaughters a number of sacred cows, and points out how the financial
>> press got almost everything about the 1990s boom wrong, and tells us
>> what really happened to some oft-derided characters who did (if time
>> travel  takes you to that era, consider investing in anyone Jim Cramer
>> dismisses).
>>
>>
>> William Hyde
>
>I saw The Big Short movie. Pretty good.

I saw it also. I probably wouldn't had I realized it was some sort of
documentary, but it held my attention and did explain things a bit.

I liked /Up in the Air/ better. But, of course, that covers the
aftermath of the financial idiocy.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

[Michael F. Stemper]

On 10/05/2024 18.50, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> Contrarian investing has always been popular.

Nice oxymoron.

--
Michael F. Stemper
This sentence no verb.

[John Savard]

On Fri, 10 May 2024 13:17:42 -0500, Lynn McGuire
<***@gmail.com> wrote:

>For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>apocalypse of the USA,

And here I was thinking this would be an off-topic post, about
non-fiction works explaining why such an apocalypse was inevitable.

Indeed, this is a scenario for many possible stories. The Mad Max
movies come to mind.

Myself, I wish that economics were more of a science, and less of a
way to apologize for ideologies, so that we could find books correctly
and accurately explaining how to avert said apocalypse.

Techniques exist. Hitler got Germany to build vast amounts of
armaments despite the Great Depression. Russia is able to build
weapons for the war on Ukraine despite crippling sanctions.

It is entirely possible to make a country as prosperous as the
"fundamentals" allow, instead of surrendering control to the stock
market and foreign exchange markets. And, not only that, given the
fact that the Allies were able to respond to Hitler and win World War
II, after FDR's New Deal was largely ineffective (so I've heard it
claimed) in ending the depression... it seems to me that our
politicians know this perfectly well, and know exactly how to do it,
but they just prefer to have millions unemployed. Even the Democrats,
even if the Republicans would like a few more unemployed and are more
willing to revel in it.

John Savard

[John Savard]

On Sat, 11 May 2024 12:29:44 -0600, John Savard
<***@servername.invalid> wrote:

>On Fri, 10 May 2024 13:17:42 -0500, Lynn McGuire
><***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>apocalypse of the USA,
>
>And here I was thinking this would be an off-topic post, about
>non-fiction works explaining why such an apocalypse was inevitable.
>
>Indeed, this is a scenario for many possible stories. The Mad Max
>movies come to mind.
>
>Myself, I wish that economics were more of a science, and less of a
>way to apologize for ideologies, so that we could find books correctly
>and accurately explaining how to avert said apocalypse.
>
>Techniques exist. Hitler got Germany to build vast amounts of
>armaments despite the Great Depression. Russia is able to build
>weapons for the war on Ukraine despite crippling sanctions.
>
> It is entirely possible to make a country as prosperous as the
>"fundamentals" allow, instead of surrendering control to the stock
>market and foreign exchange markets. And, not only that, given the
>fact that the Allies were able to respond to Hitler and win World War
>II, after FDR's New Deal was largely ineffective (so I've heard it
>claimed) in ending the depression... it seems to me that our
>politicians know this perfectly well, and know exactly how to do it,
>but they just prefer to have millions unemployed. Even the Democrats,
>even if the Republicans would like a few more unemployed and are more
>willing to revel in it.

Why, yes, I can understand why someone could have voted for Trump in
2016. Even if those who voted for him in 2020, and those who will vote
for him, if they can, in 2024, remain alien to me.

John Savard

[D]

On Sat, 11 May 2024, John Savard wrote:

> On Sat, 11 May 2024 12:29:44 -0600, John Savard
> <***@servername.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 10 May 2024 13:17:42 -0500, Lynn McGuire
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
>>> apocalypse of the USA,
>>
>> And here I was thinking this would be an off-topic post, about
>> non-fiction works explaining why such an apocalypse was inevitable.
>>
>> Indeed, this is a scenario for many possible stories. The Mad Max
>> movies come to mind.
>>
>> Myself, I wish that economics were more of a science, and less of a
>> way to apologize for ideologies, so that we could find books correctly
>> and accurately explaining how to avert said apocalypse.
>>
>> Techniques exist. Hitler got Germany to build vast amounts of
>> armaments despite the Great Depression. Russia is able to build
>> weapons for the war on Ukraine despite crippling sanctions.
>>
>> It is entirely possible to make a country as prosperous as the
>> "fundamentals" allow, instead of surrendering control to the stock
>> market and foreign exchange markets. And, not only that, given the
>> fact that the Allies were able to respond to Hitler and win World War
>> II, after FDR's New Deal was largely ineffective (so I've heard it
>> claimed) in ending the depression... it seems to me that our
>> politicians know this perfectly well, and know exactly how to do it,
>> but they just prefer to have millions unemployed. Even the Democrats,
>> even if the Republicans would like a few more unemployed and are more
>> willing to revel in it.
>
> Why, yes, I can understand why someone could have voted for Trump in
> 2016. Even if those who voted for him in 2020, and those who will vote
> for him, if they can, in 2024, remain alien to me.
>
> John Savard

Do note that the Russia sanctions, at least the european ones, are full of
holes and mean very little. An ex-colleague of mine recently traveled
through russia on vacation and they are far, _far_ from starving on the
streets.

Most, if not all, supplies of luxury goods and electronical components for
weapons are shipped in through companies in the *stan countries, turkey
and to some extent lithuania and poland.

My sources are mainstream european news from countries close to the
action.

Also note that a few european countries still buy russian gas, and sweden
allows russian gas ships to dock and refuel.

[Don]

Lynn McGuire wrote:
> For those who are interested in the future long term financial
> apocalypse of the USA, I recommend reading “The Mandibles: A Family,
> 2029-2047” by Lionel Shriver:
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Mandibles-Family-2029-2047-Lionel-Shriver/dp/006232828X/
>
> For those who do not like Lionel Shriver, I recommend “Distraction" by
> Bruce Sterling:
> https://www.amazon.com/Distraction-Bruce-Sterling/dp/1857989287/
>
> For those who just want a short term financial apocalypse of the USA, I
> recommend “Buck Out” by Ken Benton:
> https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1514666979/

Don't let the big banks' "Big Short" sequel surprise you:

... The fact that the Fed is reporting that a little more
than 8 percent of the office loans still on the books of
the banks are in trouble but somehow 31 percent of the
office loans the banks bundled into CMBS and sold to
investors are in trouble hints at a replay of the
tricked-up operations of the megabanks heading into the
2008 financial collapse. Some banks back then told their
sales staff to make it a top priority to bundle and sell
their "shitty deals" to investors and then made billions
by shorting (betting against) the toxic waste they knew
were in those deals. ...

https://wallstreetonparade.com/2024/05/delinquencies-on-office-property-loans-at-banks-are-at-8-percent-while-office-loans-the-banks-sold-to-investors-show-31-percent-in-trouble/

It goes without saying pension funds are CMBS whales, no? Our officials
ought to /do something/. But first things first. Such financial matters
must wait while we war.

"I love the smell of [BS] in the morning. You know, one
time we had a hill bombed for 12 hours. When it was all
over, I walked up. We didn't find one of 'em, not one
stinkin' dink body. The smell, you know, that [BS] smell,
the whole hill. Smells like [bankruptcy]."

_Apocolypse Now_ adaptation

Danke,

--
Don.......My cat's )\._.,--....,'``. https://crcomp.net/reviews.php
telltale tall tail /, _.. \ _\ (`._ ,. Walk humbly with thy God.
tells tall tales.. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' Make 1984 fiction again.