I wonder what Lord Keynes and his disciples would recommend for Greece today. The government already has more debt than it can hope to pay back, yet their economy keeps shrinking (by any measure).
Along with all you've said, another problem with GDP is that it miscalculates how saving buffers are consumed, specially in an inflationary scenario.
And the trade balance is just an inconsequential fraud. If anything, just the volume of trade should matter, not the difference between imports and exports, since that difference will need to be liquidated sooner or later. Only goods matters.
For private banks to channel new money to the investment sector may create a positive GDP reading it is parasitic to our domestic economies as these companies are invariably investing the money in markets over seas. Double whammy for our nations and taxpayers. Alternatively, we could explore social capitalism and ensure the majority of the new money stays within our own systems so quality of life, sustainability and quality of goods and services can increase and we can make use of the benefits
@Raistlin505 So if American banks investing in foreign markets to get interest on those investments hurts the US... China investing in America to get interest on those investments must HELP the US.
@shanedk Right which is what China did, buy government bonds, but I was kinda trying to point out the hypocrisy of his statement by pointing out foreign counterparts do invest in America as well as American ones investing in foreign countries
There are plenty of sectors where sustainable growth could be achieved but there is a lack of capital and liquidity because of the 'fear' and uncertainty. Stability needs to be restored and the way to do this is regulation of the money supply. If this was achieved and it was State controlled then they could pay off debt through signorage received. Then the money can be channeled towards the productive sector and the money could be spent on socially beneficial activity and an analysis is possible
@Itflermy, I know I was not talking about the entire definition of GDP but my intention was to express a way to improve the figures in a way that was sustainable and socially beneficial. It may be oversimplified and better to discuss alternatives. What would you like to see in the alternative and what could it be called? I have read the majority of comments and not seen these questions come up o if they are off topic, just let me know. GDP is flawed and I gladly welcome an alternative.
There's one thing I still don't get. If government spending and record low interest rates creates an artificial and unsustainable boom, why aren't we seeing the same exact thing right now when interest rates are even LOWER than they were in 2002-2003?
Yes, but my point is that the same "remedy" should yield the same symptoms. The contractions happened in 2007, and just as in 2001 the Fed lowered interest rates. In the aftermath of the recession of 2001 the result of this stimulus was a false economic growth, and now, after the same measures were taken, there's still no artificial boom.
@regelemihai The problem is that the things that occur to create the boom occur before confidence is lost in both the banking system and the economy as a whole. The distrust of the banking system (coupled with tighter requirements on lending that inevitably follow the bust) make such measures less able to be injected into the economy. This is made worse by general concern about the economy as a whole (look up "regime uncertainty").
No, there is such a thing as state change. Before they had a bigger housing sector to inflate left around to cope with the bursting of the dotcom bubble.. Now where will they go? They have already tapped the largest investment/savings of the average household.. their homes. Everything else is NOT equal.. that is the whole point.
Because people's savings are exhausted. And they don't have any collateral left, so they can't borrow. Others are looking at this dynamic and being careful. Thus any attempts to lower interest rates will be totally ineffective.
Right, but they were also back in 2001 after the NASDAQ bubble burst. The reason why there was a boom in the 2002-2007 period was because people had no savings, but the artificial credit provided to banks stimulated the economy. It was stupid, and unsustainable, as I said before, but it did create a false sense of growth. Now, there's not even that.
Yes people had almost no savings, but whatever they had they put into housing. The FED and the banks pretended that the people really were credit worthy.. Now they aren't pretending as much because now they stand to loose their loans.. unless you make Trillions of dollars in bailouts every year ..the normal procedure for banking.
Right. A contractions is necessary. The last one should've been a lot longer and should've been allowed to take its course. There is always the problem of letting people's savings disappear, which is why do-gooders ask for government intervention. I guess when it comes to Bank failures there's a great risk of a completel systemic collapse.
Agreed. The market is allowed to properly allocate resources which allows for a quick course correction. The only exception I can think of is the panic from 1873 which lasted a couple of years.
The only thing I don't understand is how such a market correction can bring back the lost savings of the people who deposited their wealth in the banks that failed.
@regelemihai Actually that whole martial law business might have exacerbated that one a bit.
The correction moves economic resources back where they need to be. Not directly, but let things shift around over time and they'll be back about where they were before.
Free market= haves and have nots, classes( rich/ middle/ poor) Resources shortages, Debt/slavery, subjecting to low wages, nukes still exist so it looks like disaster. If the free market was put into practice tomorrow it wouldn't take long for chaos to start.
@Tethloach1 "Free market= haves and have nots, classes( rich/ middle/ poor) Resources shortages, Debt/slavery, subjecting to low wages, nukes still exist so it looks like disaster."
No, that's what you get when GOVERNMENT intrudes into the market.
"If the free market was put into practice tomorrow it wouldn't take long for chaos to start."
@Tethloach1 There is no central banking system in a free market, and therefore no opportunities for the corruption and damage we see in ours. It was when our nation was the freest market that we--for the first time in ANY country's history--made starvation of the poor a thing of the past. The only debt and interest in a free market is what you willingly undertake, not what is forced on you and your children by politicians.
@shanedk thats not the point, it's flawed so when you work with something flawed it can't be sustained. Reality will bite everyone in the ass. banks own because, their will be police in the free market and banks.
Society is flawed = its a pyramid 1. Banks 2. World Leaders 3. Wealthy 4. Working class 5. Poor/poverty. At the very core of it it's flawed. It will fail from the bottom up. Again, and again.= Ancient Egypt, Roman Empire,Great Britain, next is America unless people wake up. If America falls the world falls.
@Tethloach1 Society is NOT a pyramid. That's what you get when government manages things from the top down.
1. Heavily corporatized and regulated, with political cronies everywhere.
2. POLITICAL leaders.
3-5. EVERY time we've had a freer market, the poor and working class has done well and improved greatly. EVERY TIME government has tried to manage things, they've suffered. That's a FACT.
Yes, society is flawed, but hypothetical society based on a mixture of ignorance and every failed theory out there, is not? Also if America is not the world. Regardless of how much you want it to be. The collapse of the US would be a learning moment for the rest of the world... not a disaster.
So you are going to eliminate class? Class.. the idea of classification according to any characterisitc? Are you going to eliminate the class of tall and class of short? how about beautiful and ugly? How about male and female?
Shortage of resources has led to competition and sometimes fights but only centralized power has propelled it to a violent mass-murderous wars. Oh wait, you hate competition too..right?
@utubehayter With class come tyranny, so as long as you don't see the flaw it will take you down with it. If we eliminate class(rich/middle/poor) we eliminate these along with it= Crime, Tyranny,Poverty,Resources shortages/ wars. Tall and short don't hurt, male and female don't hurt. Rich and poor hurt, haves and have nots= life or death, freedom or slavery. I did the fucking math, it,s in refutable.
Whoa! No.. no.. no! No "we". You do whatever you want. I am not with you. This concept of making everyone poor is not for me. Go kill yourself if you feel like it, you commie morons.
"I did the fucking math"
*facepalm* Yes, because everything is about math, especially when you have no numbers.
@utubehayter Since i am backed up by facts, your getting irrational also,things will get worst, communism is also failed. Things will be a lot worst then what happened in russia.
@Tethloach1 So, let's see: a free market will fail because a system that doesn't resemble the free market in any way, shape, or form and in most ways was the diametric opposite failed.
Have you noticed that these people make claims that are 180 degrees contrary to each other? They seem to know for sure how the free market failed in the past.. while at other times they will claim that a free market has never existed. They complain about things being too cheap (consumerism) and then complain everyone will be too poor. They complain about capitalism killing the planet by over population, then complain about it not taking over the world to feed the hungry.
@Tethloach1 Since you seem to believe in the long-debunked Marxian notion of class warfare and that "shortages stifle nations" without regard for the cause of those shortages, it is clear that you wouldn't know a fact if its incisors were deeply embedded in your gluteal muscles.
@utubehayter Try refuting it instead of complaining. Your living in a fantasy. everyone will be poor in the long run, if you stick to your dogma( free markets/ capitalism). Class is a fiction we humans have designed so eliminating it would not make everyone poor. I love reality it punishes us for our ignorance. 1920-1930 great depression more will come as long as we stay ignorant, it will also get worst( wars, poverty, riots,and tyranny
@Tethloach1 Hilarious that some one suggests other are living in a fantasy world that will make everyone poor in the long run when it is the very things you are advocating that resulted in the Great Depression (or at least prolonged it greatly - a point that isn't even economically controversial). History is entirely against you. try doing some actual research.
@shanedk First admit you can't refute it also. promise to drop all bias like you would with religion. Great nations fail from bottom up it,s history, shortages stifle nations, tensions rise wars are declared. loan= owned, money+ strings attached always. it really is a game at the very core, banks win by default. it,s in the money. tyranny and class are together. where you have class tyrants will rise. It's a game meant for tyrants= money.
@Tethloach1 "First admit you can't refute it also"
How can I say whether or not I can refute it until you present it? YOU made the case; it is up to YOU to support it. ONLY THEN is there a question of whether or not I can refute it.
"Great nations fail from bottom up it,s history"
Citations, please. Most of them, like the Roman Empire, failed because of top-down corruption.
@shanedk Hmm..... Im not going to re explain everything. also Your dogmatic
( free market) your so called free market won't happen, and society will change one way or another. It's not terrorist that will bring America to it's knees it's banks. Have fun in fantasy land(free market), where class, wars, poverty, tyranny don't exist.
@utubehayter Yes I already have look over it. It's as simple as it gets. calling me a communist doesn't in anyway change the facts. the only problem is your arrogance, dogma. Your like when people believed the earth was flat, you feel as if your fantasy trumps reality. I think America can only take one more economic crash, rebuilding this system again would surely causes problem. It,s like trying to use poison as food eventually kills ya. denial= doesn't change reality
I did.. there is no math in this comment section from you. Other than your "word 1 = really bad words", "word 2 = really really bad words". Is that what you think is your math?
@Tethloach1 "Im not going to re explain everything."
You haven't explained anything to begin with! All you've done is just spout a lot of baseless platitudes and ignored us when we asked you to back them up.
@Tethloach1 "It's irrefutable." The final argument when there is no argument. The studies show that crime and povery have a cuasal relationship backwards from what most people expect (criminalty results in poverty, not the other way around). And history demonstrates that "rich and poor" do NOT 'hurt" in the presence of a burgeoning middle class (thanks to capitalism) and strong income mobility. History is, again, entirely against you.
@utubehayter HOPEFULLY they'll learn finally, but notice this guy mentions civilizations like Egypt and ancient Rome without understanding WHY they failed (fiat currency, central planning, etc.).
Why delve into real history when you can simply attribute it to simplistic conceptions like class, greed, rich and poor, and competition? LOL! You might as well be asking them to be peaceful and work hard in the free market! Knowledge is kryptonite to these people... they avoid it all cost.
Good luck! I have to admit it is fun sometimes, but right now I got no patience for this BS.
Say hello to Mr. Rorke and Tattoo while you're there on the island. The circumstances are ENTIRELY different here than in any of your other examples. The US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world; most of the poor will no longer be within 6 years, fully a third of those in the bottom income quintile will reach the top income quintile. The middle class is alive and well and not suffering from mythical "stagnation".
@shanedk Awwww. And I was so hoping for him to to refute that my wisdom was at least as valuable as "consideration" as the bridge to nowhere in Alsaka, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FDA and our overseas military operations.
Surely he wouldn't dismiss me as childish and pretend that his determinations of what consititutes "consideration" are baselessly more valid than anyone else's, would he?
I was bound to get a thoughtful and intellectually consistent response, right?
@FletchforFreedom People need to understand that I don't LIKE blocking people. I would have loved to have him go on spewing his idiocy like that. I even let one violation slide after I gave him his third warning. But on the whole, I think this channel is better off with people giving sound arguments and having intelligent debates than with conversations degenerating into so much mudslinging no such conversation is possible, like on many other channels.
@utubehayter You mean, have a whole bunch of people give me stuff without having to pay for it? Sure!
(Of course, I'm not going to give up money and buying other things myself, you understand, but the VP affords no means of enforcement to stop me from doing that.)
Hey I did not think of that. They do want control of all the resources. And of course, they want to avoid wars. So if you threaten them with a BB gun they might just surrender to you and become your slaves.
@shanedk Just jumping in here, but actually most of HK's hospitals are public (about 38), with some private (13). It's actually a mixed public/private system, where private care often costs twice as much or more as public care, and there is little difference if any in quality. Private care is usually provided by expensive western doctors, hence the high cost. Also, only about 35% of HK citizens are on private care. The majority are on public. Lastly, their DoH is not just advisory.
@shanedk No problem. I think regarding the DoH we are both right. It is advisory, but also has a legislative division with executive powers. In any case HK's system seems like a good one to emulate, and you're right it is not UHC in the traditional sense.
@cbl2988 The reason why prices are high is the devaluation of the dollar and the monopoly of big business. The former is the problem with the banks, the second is a problem because once you have no competitors you can set the price you want.
i agree with you that GDP is a poor indicator in itself. But i got a question from another angle @shanedk
considering the WW2 situation, if all of the minilary spending's would be in the private sector instead, would that be something supporting economically the general public? and ultimatley, would a free-makret economist support that?
@tazmaniainc Yes, because if it weren't no one would support that. You HAVE to have a government in order to have special interests profit at the expense of everyone else. There is NO WAY you could sustain such a thing in a free market.
@shanedk so the bottom line remains the same, war is good for making profit. In a free market case only there would be a larger pool ppl who would profit from war.
but .. doesn't that in the first place defeats the purpose of human well-being instead of profiteering from war?
@shanedk Geez, there's even a wikipedia article called "war profiteering", how can you say that war is not good for profit. Sure it is, but only for select people.
@Anonymous247n Shane was saying, in a free market War is not profitable. To make it profitable requires government. In war, your only customer is government, or someone elses government, not individuals.
@Anonymous247n It can only happen when GOVERNMENT wages the war to give tax money to those select people. There would be NO profit in it in a free market.
@shanedk Ah true, i too think the free market would do away with wars. You must still consider private armies but i agree, having no government sure would solve a couple problems!
@interstate317 I do it from a comment, but I'm not sure how to do it from the new home page layout. If he posts a comment it's an option in the Reply drop-down.
if you are a POLITICIAN and tax me no service for you, if you fund wars with my tax dollars no service, if you pass a law that take freedoms from me no service, if you punish voluntary trade or action no service, take your business else where. if you make it so politicians can't get service or goods, they will be unwelcome in their own state and country soon we will be much freer for it. Ron Paul is a statesmen, not a politician
I have Michael badnarik to thank for bringing be to the voluntaryist light this is how Americans should vote with their property rights guns and association if you use political association in business to refuse service, and make coalitions to elect people ending the 2 party tyranny, we can start to fix this country ending the unmoral initiation of force must be are highest goal
No, GDP does that just fine, provided that the same set of assumptions are made in calculating each figure (hint: different bureaucracies and central banks use different accounting methods under different circumstances, depending on what they want to prove at the time). It's just that "a composite high level value of the volume of monetary flow" is useful only under special circumstances, and useless or misleading the rest of the time.
but think about all the money lost from downed plans misused bombs and sunken ships it is a total net loss with no gain at all unless you plunder to come up even
Excellent vid. One of the best I've ever seen. Check out, "Should We Believe the GDP?" by Doug French. "The attempts to determine in money the wealth of a nation or of the whole of mankind are as childish as the mystic efforts to solve the riddles of the universe by worrying about the dimensions of the pyramid of Cheops." -- Ludwig Von Mises
@shanedk The homicide rate in the relevant counties, Monterey County and Nevada County, were 609 and 89 respectively. In California as a whole, which is obviously misleading because it isn't gold rush-specific, it was 65.
@dbrandow But that's exactly my point: He said that "many communities" had murder rates of 200, and then compared that to an overall average. As you just showed, you can pretty much always cherry-pick whatever community you want to show whatever you want.
If you have a community of 500 people, and there's ONE murder, there's your murder rate of 200 per 100,000. And he doesn't even say WHAT communities; if you can draw your own after the fact you can conclude whatever you want.
@shanedk The point you asked me to make was that the existence of non-governmental supplied mechanisms to stop crime, specifically homicides, didn't work. The homicide rates were demonstrably extremely high in the counties affected by the Gold Rush. QED.
@shanedk Ummm...no. The only data I stated about the modern US was for New Orleans, which was under 50, which was lower than either of the two counties I stated for the Gold Rush era. Try to keep up.
@dbrandow You yourself admitted that Monterey County was 609.
All this is bullshit anyway. What you need to do is compare crime before these mechanisms were in place to after. You can only use your figures as support if you establish a proper baseline, which you haven't.
@shanedk Do I have any data to support the assertion that most regulation is done by governments, not by private enterprise? No, I haven't been able to find any, despite how reasonably obvious it is. If you can show evidence that I'm wrong about it, though, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
@shanedk No, the claim doesn't fail, it remains unsupported. Just because I haven't discovered a source which documents what percentage of countries have public regulators doesn't mean that the percentage is necessarily low, it just means that we don't know what it is. As an example, to the best of my knowledge, all of the OECD countries use primarily public regulators.
@shanedk And when did "several" countries comprise a majority? Did the number of countries in the world get drastically reduced while I wasn't looking? All you'd have done would have been to put us on equal footing, since I also mentioned a number of countries, specifically the OECD countries, that are primarily use public regulators.
@dbrandow Several PRIVATE REGULATORS, MORON--NOT several countries! Do try to follow the chain of conversation, it makes things so much easier...
"I also mentioned a number of countries, specifically the OECD countries, that are primarily use public regulators."
Primarily != solely. You deny that these countries even have ANY private regulators, as you yourself just summarized: "the claim that most countries have private regulators also fails."
@shanedk Fair enough, I cited the claim correctly. My claim was that most countries have primarily public regulators, which you feel fails due to lack of evidence. The opposing claim, which would thus also fail, would more properly read "that most countries have primarily private regulators".
@lordthawkeye Are there cases where regulators have been corrupted by special interests? Absolutely, corruption is everywhere, its part of the human condition, and it must be rooted out continuously. But the notion that virtually all of them are entirely beholden to outside sources is very much a conspiracy theory, not reality. And the answer to 'the cops are corrupt' is to fix the corruption, not stop having police, that's crazy.
@shanedk And you have power where the regulations you enforce have a large economic impact, regardless of whether the regulator is private or public. The only difference is that corruption in public regulators is more likely to be discovered because of public disclosure laws.
@dbrandow "And you have power where the regulations you enforce have a large economic impact, regardless of whether the regulator is private or public."
Show me ONE case of it happening with a private regulator. And there are PLENTY big ones to choose from: UL, IEEE, ISO...
@shanedk Figured I'd pick the first one on your list. Skipping a variety of lawsuits against UL, the most obvious would be J.F. Meacham's allegations against UL. And again, the ones you've chosen are self-policing organizations, so you wouldn't expect to see of corruption, after all, when you get to make your own rules, its pretty hard to get caught breaking them.
@dbrandow No one takes Meacham seriously. He "waited" over THIRTY YEARS to make the allegations, when he KNEW the records would no longer be available.
UL underwrites the safety directly (hence the name). If they allow ANY bad product through, they share liability for the damages. NO amount of bribery would be enough to cover the lawsuits!
Ironically, he just made a criticism of gov't. Last I checked, isn't that "making their own rules" what GovCo does? Hell, how many politicians does he know went to jail for war crimes because of Iraq, Libya, etc?
@dbrandow The difference is, you can choose whether or not to use those private organizations. If UL starts dropping the ball or becomes corrupt, Met Labs will HAPPILY step in and do it better.
There is no such option, no such incentive, and no such protection with government.
@shanedk The counter to that is that government regulators are forced to be open about their dealing through freedom of information acts, no such equivalent exists for private regulators. So any behind the scenes dealing that happens in private regulators is dramatically more likely to remain hidden. There are pros and cons with both approaches.
@dbrandow "The counter to that is that government regulators are forced to be open about their dealing through freedom of information acts"
Yeah, those have NEVER been stifled, or stonewalled, or opposed in ANY WAY...geez...
Most of those take YEARS of fighting in the courts to get the government to comply with them, and so they can only be done by people who can afford to do it.
@shanedk Are freedom of information acts perfect, or perfectly enforced? Of course not. But the simple fact is that they exist for public regulators, and are largely effective, and that no counterpart exists for private regulators.
@dbrandow Again, you don't HAVE to deal with private organizations. Governments operate and are funded by FORCE. If you don't see how that makes such a big difference, you're a sociopath; that's all there is to it.
@shanedk Governments, most specifically public regulators in the context of this discussion, impose regulations that benefit either all of us or at the very least the vast majority of us. They keep products like food and drugs and air travel etc. safe (or at least safer) to use and consume, they act as a check on private industry. Not perfect, mind you, but better than the unregulated state we were in beforehand.
I won't address your ridiculous, unfounded, unjustified character attack.
@dbrandow "Governments, most specifically public regulators in the context of this discussion, impose regulations that benefit either all of us or at the very least the vast majority of us."
Bullshit dogmatism from a fantasist in a dream world. They're made to benefit special interests, and they ALL--EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM--give big corporations an advantage over smaller business. It can NEVER be any other way.
@dbrandow NO, LIAR, no conspiracy theories--do you say that about EVERY concept you don't agree with?
Every regulation increases the cost of doing business. EVERY SINGLE ONE. So big corporations are able to absorb those costs while the small businesses end up being cash-strapped. That's why the big corps lobby FOR these regulations!
@shanedk Um....I very clearly did respond to the point. I had a long paragraph responding to the point, and a very short sentence pointing out your character attack.
@dbrandow "I very clearly did respond to the point."
Where? 'Cause I read it again, and I don't see it. I saw platitudes and unfounded assertions about the wonderful things the saints in government do, while YOU completely avoided the point about government force and its detrimental effects.
@shanedk The fact that government regulators keep food, drugs, air travel etc. safe is a fact, not an unfounded assertion. That's what they do. There is plenty of evidence documenting how they have acted to discover and then remove unsafe food out of the supply chain, for example.
I did address the point by explaining how these institutions you feel forced upon you are beneficial. Having something good forced on you isn't particularly onerous.
@dbrandow Finally, they are not forced on you any more than the rules of a club are forced on you when you join it. The only difference here is that you don't have an initial choice of which club (country) to join, you are born in one. But by the time you are an adult, you can choose which club (county) to join, which set of rules you wish to abide by. If you don't like any of the clubs' (countries') rules, then yes, you'd be forced to pick the one you disliked the least. Suck it up.
@shanedk Quote mine. Either cite the whole sentence or don't cite it. In context, its clear that I do agree that it is force, but its force that you have implicitly agreed to accept.
@dbrandow Fine: "Finally, they are not forced on you any more than the rules of a club are forced on you when you join it."
You're still FUCKING WRONG!!! And no, I have NOT FUCKING AGREED TO IT! Social contract BULLSHIT again. NO thinking person who isn't a complete government tool accepts it!
@shanedk Again, by choosing to remain here, you have implicitly agreed to abide by those rules or the known consequences of not abiding by those rules and getting caught. If you did not at least implicitly agree to them, if you viewed them as completely unacceptable, you would have left.
@shanedk Sorry, buzzer on that one. Clearly the courts have agreed to the ability of governments to enforce their laws on their populations without having their populations sign an agreement to abide by them.
@dbrandow An implied-in-fact contract requires a meeting of the minds, which does NOT exist in this case--it CERTAINLY doesn't exist for a newborn baby! And you claim this contract is from birth. Moreover, the person must take some SPECIFIC action to indicate acceptance of the contract, and you're basing it on a LACK of action: i.e., you haven't moved away. They also aren't valid for many transactions, such as real estate.
@shanedk More quote mining, and yes, I'll cite Wikipedia again (from the Supreme Court): "...is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding". The conduct of staying in the country when you have the ability to leave demonstrates tacit understanding.
The fact that implicit contracts do not apply to real estate is, well, irrelevant.
Look, you FUCKING LIAR, I've been MORE than patient with you, but you've been in SERIOUS breach of Rule #5! It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to commit quote-mining when people can JUST READ THE POST DIRECTLY ABOVE IT! This is your FIRST warning. Continue in this despicable, dishonest behavior and YOU WILL BE BLOCKED.
@dbrandow No, because you DID quote-mine Wikipedia by leaving out a phrase that completely changes the meaning. That's COMPLETELY different from just giving a reference quote to the post DIRECTLY ABOVE that you're responding to.
You have NO justification for this pathetic attempt at character assassination.
@dbrandow Interesting how you left out the part about ""founded upon a meeting of minds." YOU'RE the goddamn quote-miner, you FUCKING LIAR!
Also, it goes on to say: "Although the parties may not have exchanged words of agreement, THEIR ACTIONS may indicate that an agreement existed anyway."
And how about this: "...acceptance is being made by beginning a specified task."
@shanedk I was completing the quote, so obviously I didn't need to fill in the first part. That's the what three dots means. Welcome to the English language.
I wonder what Lord Keynes and his disciples would recommend for Greece today. The government already has more debt than it can hope to pay back, yet their economy keeps shrinking (by any measure).
GregoryTheGr8ster 1 week ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Along with all you've said, another problem with GDP is that it miscalculates how saving buffers are consumed, specially in an inflationary scenario.
And the trade balance is just an inconsequential fraud. If anything, just the volume of trade should matter, not the difference between imports and exports, since that difference will need to be liquidated sooner or later. Only goods matters.
vjfperez 1 month ago
@vjfperez Yes, and it doesn't account for the fact that, during a monetary bubble, much of it is malinvestment.
shanedk 1 month ago
RON PAUL 2012
now if you'll excuse me, i'm going to watch that episode of Friendship is Magic in the related videos
LearnManGo 1 month ago
Just watched this particular video. I am already disillusioned by things. This is not helping.
But it is very informative!
piecharthosen 1 month ago
For private banks to channel new money to the investment sector may create a positive GDP reading it is parasitic to our domestic economies as these companies are invariably investing the money in markets over seas. Double whammy for our nations and taxpayers. Alternatively, we could explore social capitalism and ensure the majority of the new money stays within our own systems so quality of life, sustainability and quality of goods and services can increase and we can make use of the benefits
Raistlin505 1 month ago
@Raistlin505
"Alternatively, we could explore social capitalism and ensure the majority of the new money stays within our own..."
You mean like third world countries like India and Thailand tried until the 1980-90s? It sure made them rich. Did it not?
utubehayter 1 month ago
@Raistlin505 So if American banks investing in foreign markets to get interest on those investments hurts the US... China investing in America to get interest on those investments must HELP the US.
TRMerc 1 month ago
@TRMerc As long as it's private investment, they BOTH help the US. It's only when government goes into debt that it becomes a problem.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Right which is what China did, buy government bonds, but I was kinda trying to point out the hypocrisy of his statement by pointing out foreign counterparts do invest in America as well as American ones investing in foreign countries
TRMerc 1 month ago
There are plenty of sectors where sustainable growth could be achieved but there is a lack of capital and liquidity because of the 'fear' and uncertainty. Stability needs to be restored and the way to do this is regulation of the money supply. If this was achieved and it was State controlled then they could pay off debt through signorage received. Then the money can be channeled towards the productive sector and the money could be spent on socially beneficial activity and an analysis is possible
Raistlin505 1 month ago
@Itflermy, I know I was not talking about the entire definition of GDP but my intention was to express a way to improve the figures in a way that was sustainable and socially beneficial. It may be oversimplified and better to discuss alternatives. What would you like to see in the alternative and what could it be called? I have read the majority of comments and not seen these questions come up o if they are off topic, just let me know. GDP is flawed and I gladly welcome an alternative.
Raistlin505 1 month ago
There's one thing I still don't get. If government spending and record low interest rates creates an artificial and unsustainable boom, why aren't we seeing the same exact thing right now when interest rates are even LOWER than they were in 2002-2003?
regelemihai 1 month ago
@regelemihai That would be the "unsustainable" part.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Yes, but my point is that the same "remedy" should yield the same symptoms. The contractions happened in 2007, and just as in 2001 the Fed lowered interest rates. In the aftermath of the recession of 2001 the result of this stimulus was a false economic growth, and now, after the same measures were taken, there's still no artificial boom.
regelemihai 1 month ago
@regelemihai "Yes, but my point is that the same "remedy" should yield the same symptoms."
After you let the correction happen, sure, but they haven't done that. They've kept trying to prop everything up and just kept us in the quagmire.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Makes sense. Thanks for the response Shane.
regelemihai 1 month ago
@regelemihai The problem is that the things that occur to create the boom occur before confidence is lost in both the banking system and the economy as a whole. The distrust of the banking system (coupled with tighter requirements on lending that inevitably follow the bust) make such measures less able to be injected into the economy. This is made worse by general concern about the economy as a whole (look up "regime uncertainty").
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@regelemihai
No, there is such a thing as state change. Before they had a bigger housing sector to inflate left around to cope with the bursting of the dotcom bubble.. Now where will they go? They have already tapped the largest investment/savings of the average household.. their homes. Everything else is NOT equal.. that is the whole point.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@regelemihai
Because people's savings are exhausted. And they don't have any collateral left, so they can't borrow. Others are looking at this dynamic and being careful. Thus any attempts to lower interest rates will be totally ineffective.
utubehayter 1 month ago
"Because people's savings are exhausted"
Right, but they were also back in 2001 after the NASDAQ bubble burst. The reason why there was a boom in the 2002-2007 period was because people had no savings, but the artificial credit provided to banks stimulated the economy. It was stupid, and unsustainable, as I said before, but it did create a false sense of growth. Now, there's not even that.
regelemihai 1 month ago
@regelemihai The discount rate was actually raised from 2001-2004.
shanedk 1 month ago
@regelemihai
Yes people had almost no savings, but whatever they had they put into housing. The FED and the banks pretended that the people really were credit worthy.. Now they aren't pretending as much because now they stand to loose their loans.. unless you make Trillions of dollars in bailouts every year ..the normal procedure for banking.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter
Right. A contractions is necessary. The last one should've been a lot longer and should've been allowed to take its course. There is always the problem of letting people's savings disappear, which is why do-gooders ask for government intervention. I guess when it comes to Bank failures there's a great risk of a completel systemic collapse.
regelemihai 1 month ago
@regelemihai Actually they're a lot SHORTER when they're allowed to take their course.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Agreed. The market is allowed to properly allocate resources which allows for a quick course correction. The only exception I can think of is the panic from 1873 which lasted a couple of years.
The only thing I don't understand is how such a market correction can bring back the lost savings of the people who deposited their wealth in the banks that failed.
regelemihai 1 month ago
@regelemihai Actually that whole martial law business might have exacerbated that one a bit.
The correction moves economic resources back where they need to be. Not directly, but let things shift around over time and they'll be back about where they were before.
shanedk 1 month ago
@regelemihai
Money is not wealth. Liquidation of banks transfers wealth from hands of those that actually lost it, to hopefully better managers of that wealth.
It can't bring back any savings (but then nothing else can either). Savings will have to be generated all new.
utubehayter 1 month ago
Free market= haves and have nots, classes( rich/ middle/ poor) Resources shortages, Debt/slavery, subjecting to low wages, nukes still exist so it looks like disaster. If the free market was put into practice tomorrow it wouldn't take long for chaos to start.
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 "Free market= haves and have nots, classes( rich/ middle/ poor) Resources shortages, Debt/slavery, subjecting to low wages, nukes still exist so it looks like disaster."
No, that's what you get when GOVERNMENT intrudes into the market.
"If the free market was put into practice tomorrow it wouldn't take long for chaos to start."
And what would you call what we have now?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Isn't their debt and interest in the free market?? are everyone going to have access to food? Aren't thier going to be banks?
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 There is no central banking system in a free market, and therefore no opportunities for the corruption and damage we see in ours. It was when our nation was the freest market that we--for the first time in ANY country's history--made starvation of the poor a thing of the past. The only debt and interest in a free market is what you willingly undertake, not what is forced on you and your children by politicians.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk thats not the point, it's flawed so when you work with something flawed it can't be sustained. Reality will bite everyone in the ass. banks own because, their will be police in the free market and banks.
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 How on Earth could banks POSSIBLY be the police in a free market?
shanedk 1 month ago
Society is flawed = its a pyramid 1. Banks 2. World Leaders 3. Wealthy 4. Working class 5. Poor/poverty. At the very core of it it's flawed. It will fail from the bottom up. Again, and again.= Ancient Egypt, Roman Empire,Great Britain, next is America unless people wake up. If America falls the world falls.
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 Society is NOT a pyramid. That's what you get when government manages things from the top down.
1. Heavily corporatized and regulated, with political cronies everywhere.
2. POLITICAL leaders.
3-5. EVERY time we've had a freer market, the poor and working class has done well and improved greatly. EVERY TIME government has tried to manage things, they've suffered. That's a FACT.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk umm... saying it's not a pyramid doesn't show intelligence sorry but the game is over, tell the rest of the world.
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1
Yes, society is flawed, but hypothetical society based on a mixture of ignorance and every failed theory out there, is not? Also if America is not the world. Regardless of how much you want it to be. The collapse of the US would be a learning moment for the rest of the world... not a disaster.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter Class= tyranny, debt, poor, rich, banks. War= resources shortages. It's a fact. when the resources shrink war brakes lose.
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1
So you are going to eliminate class? Class.. the idea of classification according to any characterisitc? Are you going to eliminate the class of tall and class of short? how about beautiful and ugly? How about male and female?
Shortage of resources has led to competition and sometimes fights but only centralized power has propelled it to a violent mass-murderous wars. Oh wait, you hate competition too..right?
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter With class come tyranny, so as long as you don't see the flaw it will take you down with it. If we eliminate class(rich/middle/poor) we eliminate these along with it= Crime, Tyranny,Poverty,Resources shortages/ wars. Tall and short don't hurt, male and female don't hurt. Rich and poor hurt, haves and have nots= life or death, freedom or slavery. I did the fucking math, it,s in refutable.
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1
"If we eliminate"
Whoa! No.. no.. no! No "we". You do whatever you want. I am not with you. This concept of making everyone poor is not for me. Go kill yourself if you feel like it, you commie morons.
"I did the fucking math"
*facepalm* Yes, because everything is about math, especially when you have no numbers.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter Since i am backed up by facts, your getting irrational also,things will get worst, communism is also failed. Things will be a lot worst then what happened in russia.
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 "Since i am backed up by facts"
You have yet to present any.
shanedk 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 So, let's see: a free market will fail because a system that doesn't resemble the free market in any way, shape, or form and in most ways was the diametric opposite failed.
Gotcha.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Have you noticed that these people make claims that are 180 degrees contrary to each other? They seem to know for sure how the free market failed in the past.. while at other times they will claim that a free market has never existed. They complain about things being too cheap (consumerism) and then complain everyone will be too poor. They complain about capitalism killing the planet by over population, then complain about it not taking over the world to feed the hungry.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 Since you seem to believe in the long-debunked Marxian notion of class warfare and that "shortages stifle nations" without regard for the cause of those shortages, it is clear that you wouldn't know a fact if its incisors were deeply embedded in your gluteal muscles.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@utubehayter Try refuting it instead of complaining. Your living in a fantasy. everyone will be poor in the long run, if you stick to your dogma( free markets/ capitalism). Class is a fiction we humans have designed so eliminating it would not make everyone poor. I love reality it punishes us for our ignorance. 1920-1930 great depression more will come as long as we stay ignorant, it will also get worst( wars, poverty, riots,and tyranny
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 Hilarious that some one suggests other are living in a fantasy world that will make everyone poor in the long run when it is the very things you are advocating that resulted in the Great Depression (or at least prolonged it greatly - a point that isn't even economically controversial). History is entirely against you. try doing some actual research.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 "I did the fucking math, it,s in refutable."
Then show your work.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk First admit you can't refute it also. promise to drop all bias like you would with religion. Great nations fail from bottom up it,s history, shortages stifle nations, tensions rise wars are declared. loan= owned, money+ strings attached always. it really is a game at the very core, banks win by default. it,s in the money. tyranny and class are together. where you have class tyrants will rise. It's a game meant for tyrants= money.
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 "First admit you can't refute it also"
How can I say whether or not I can refute it until you present it? YOU made the case; it is up to YOU to support it. ONLY THEN is there a question of whether or not I can refute it.
"Great nations fail from bottom up it,s history"
Citations, please. Most of them, like the Roman Empire, failed because of top-down corruption.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Hmm..... Im not going to re explain everything. also Your dogmatic
( free market) your so called free market won't happen, and society will change one way or another. It's not terrorist that will bring America to it's knees it's banks. Have fun in fantasy land(free market), where class, wars, poverty, tyranny don't exist.
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1
Are you claiming to have explained your "math" already? Where? in the comment section here?
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter Yes I already have look over it. It's as simple as it gets. calling me a communist doesn't in anyway change the facts. the only problem is your arrogance, dogma. Your like when people believed the earth was flat, you feel as if your fantasy trumps reality. I think America can only take one more economic crash, rebuilding this system again would surely causes problem. It,s like trying to use poison as food eventually kills ya. denial= doesn't change reality
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1
I did.. there is no math in this comment section from you. Other than your "word 1 = really bad words", "word 2 = really really bad words". Is that what you think is your math?
utubehayter 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 "Im not going to re explain everything."
You haven't explained anything to begin with! All you've done is just spout a lot of baseless platitudes and ignored us when we asked you to back them up.
shanedk 1 month ago
@Tethloach1
"First admit you can't refute it also"
There you go!!! spoken like a true believer!
utubehayter 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 "It's irrefutable." The final argument when there is no argument. The studies show that crime and povery have a cuasal relationship backwards from what most people expect (criminalty results in poverty, not the other way around). And history demonstrates that "rich and poor" do NOT 'hurt" in the presence of a burgeoning middle class (thanks to capitalism) and strong income mobility. History is, again, entirely against you.
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@utubehayter HOPEFULLY they'll learn finally, but notice this guy mentions civilizations like Egypt and ancient Rome without understanding WHY they failed (fiat currency, central planning, etc.).
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Why delve into real history when you can simply attribute it to simplistic conceptions like class, greed, rich and poor, and competition? LOL! You might as well be asking them to be peaceful and work hard in the free market! Knowledge is kryptonite to these people... they avoid it all cost.
Good luck! I have to admit it is fun sometimes, but right now I got no patience for this BS.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter live in your dogmatic world reality will bite you in the ass, when it does.
Tethloach1 1 month ago
@Tethloach1 "Society is ... a pyramid."
Say hello to Mr. Rorke and Tattoo while you're there on the island. The circumstances are ENTIRELY different here than in any of your other examples. The US has the wealthiest "poor" in the world; most of the poor will no longer be within 6 years, fully a third of those in the bottom income quintile will reach the top income quintile. The middle class is alive and well and not suffering from mythical "stagnation".
The 99 percenters are unconscious
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
dbrandow has been blocked for repeated Rule 5 violations.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Awwww. And I was so hoping for him to to refute that my wisdom was at least as valuable as "consideration" as the bridge to nowhere in Alsaka, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FDA and our overseas military operations.
Surely he wouldn't dismiss me as childish and pretend that his determinations of what consititutes "consideration" are baselessly more valid than anyone else's, would he?
I was bound to get a thoughtful and intellectually consistent response, right?
FletchforFreedom 1 month ago
@FletchforFreedom People need to understand that I don't LIKE blocking people. I would have loved to have him go on spewing his idiocy like that. I even let one violation slide after I gave him his third warning. But on the whole, I think this channel is better off with people giving sound arguments and having intelligent debates than with conversations degenerating into so much mudslinging no such conversation is possible, like on many other channels.
shanedk 1 month ago
The Minsky Moment!
houndogsteve 1 month ago
WTH?
Why is there a MLP:FiM episode as my first suggested video for this? O.o
vspqbd 1 month ago
Guys... calm down :)
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n What fun would that be?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Don't you want to calm down and join the venus project? Like our friend here?
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter You mean, have a whole bunch of people give me stuff without having to pay for it? Sure!
(Of course, I'm not going to give up money and buying other things myself, you understand, but the VP affords no means of enforcement to stop me from doing that.)
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Hey I did not think of that. They do want control of all the resources. And of course, they want to avoid wars. So if you threaten them with a BB gun they might just surrender to you and become your slaves.
utubehayter 1 month ago
@utubehayter Lol stay cool mr. hater, you've made good points in our conversation already, don't spoil your efforts now with childishness ;)
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n
Relax its just fun!
utubehayter 1 month ago
@shanedk Good point, just don't lose hair over youtube conversations :)
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
Hey, Shane, can I be a part of the 10k USD bit that dbrandow has to pay too? :D
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd Sigh...more childishness.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@vspqbd So far he owes like $2 mil. :)
dj092768 1 month ago
@dj092768 I was really holding out hope that you weren't the childish one. Sigh. Again, no consideration, no meeting of the minds, no contract.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow "Again, no consideration, no meeting of the minds, no contract."
As I've been trying to get you to admit for hours!
Where is the meeting of the minds in a social contract?
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Just jumping in here, but actually most of HK's hospitals are public (about 38), with some private (13). It's actually a mixed public/private system, where private care often costs twice as much or more as public care, and there is little difference if any in quality. Private care is usually provided by expensive western doctors, hence the high cost. Also, only about 35% of HK citizens are on private care. The majority are on public. Lastly, their DoH is not just advisory.
ltflermy 1 month ago
@ltflermy Thanks for the correction. But it's still not UHC, so the point stands.
Although I just looked up their DoH and it DOES say that it's advisory.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk No problem. I think regarding the DoH we are both right. It is advisory, but also has a legislative division with executive powers. In any case HK's system seems like a good one to emulate, and you're right it is not UHC in the traditional sense.
ltflermy 1 month ago
08:59 Oh! so increased government spending lowers private spending!
abeismain 1 month ago
@abeismain All other things being equal, yes! Government has no money of its own; it HAS to take it from private sources.
shanedk 1 month ago
Comment removed
abeismain 1 month ago
@cbl2988 The reason why prices are high is the devaluation of the dollar and the monopoly of big business. The former is the problem with the banks, the second is a problem because once you have no competitors you can set the price you want.
JamesJimRaynor 1 month ago
i agree with you that GDP is a poor indicator in itself. But i got a question from another angle @shanedk
considering the WW2 situation, if all of the minilary spending's would be in the private sector instead, would that be something supporting economically the general public? and ultimatley, would a free-makret economist support that?
tazmaniainc 1 month ago
@tazmaniainc Yes, because if it weren't no one would support that. You HAVE to have a government in order to have special interests profit at the expense of everyone else. There is NO WAY you could sustain such a thing in a free market.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk so the bottom line remains the same, war is good for making profit. In a free market case only there would be a larger pool ppl who would profit from war.
but .. doesn't that in the first place defeats the purpose of human well-being instead of profiteering from war?
tazmaniainc 1 month ago
@tazmaniainc War is NOT good for making profit. Again, look at the austerity of WWII!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Geez, there's even a wikipedia article called "war profiteering", how can you say that war is not good for profit. Sure it is, but only for select people.
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n Shane was saying, in a free market War is not profitable. To make it profitable requires government. In war, your only customer is government, or someone elses government, not individuals.
dj092768 1 month ago
@dj092768 "In war, your only customer is government, or someone elses government"
Or both, if you're enterprising enough...
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk that's true. *cough* Ford *cough*
dj092768 1 month ago
@Anonymous247n It can only happen when GOVERNMENT wages the war to give tax money to those select people. There would be NO profit in it in a free market.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Ah true, i too think the free market would do away with wars. You must still consider private armies but i agree, having no government sure would solve a couple problems!
Anonymous247n 1 month ago
shane, how do you block someone. I am trying to block Zargo Zen from posting PM's but can't figure out how with the new Youtube layout.
interstate317 1 month ago
@interstate317 I do it from a comment, but I'm not sure how to do it from the new home page layout. If he posts a comment it's an option in the Reply drop-down.
shanedk 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
if you are a POLITICIAN and tax me no service for you, if you fund wars with my tax dollars no service, if you pass a law that take freedoms from me no service, if you punish voluntary trade or action no service, take your business else where. if you make it so politicians can't get service or goods, they will be unwelcome in their own state and country soon we will be much freer for it. Ron Paul is a statesmen, not a politician
libertarianwarbook 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I have Michael badnarik to thank for bringing be to the voluntaryist light this is how Americans should vote with their property rights guns and association if you use political association in business to refuse service, and make coalitions to elect people ending the 2 party tyranny, we can start to fix this country ending the unmoral initiation of force must be are highest goal
libertarianwarbook 1 month ago
Hey, great video! You have a knack for explaining economic concepts in a very straight forward manner. :)
LiberAnarchy 1 month ago
@ZangaroZen
"What other method[...]"
No, GDP does that just fine, provided that the same set of assumptions are made in calculating each figure (hint: different bureaucracies and central banks use different accounting methods under different circumstances, depending on what they want to prove at the time). It's just that "a composite high level value of the volume of monetary flow" is useful only under special circumstances, and useless or misleading the rest of the time.
PanzerDivisionBOM 1 month ago
but think about all the money lost from downed plans misused bombs and sunken ships it is a total net loss with no gain at all unless you plunder to come up even
libertarianwarbook 1 month ago
Excellent vid. One of the best I've ever seen. Check out, "Should We Believe the GDP?" by Doug French. "The attempts to determine in money the wealth of a nation or of the whole of mankind are as childish as the mystic efforts to solve the riddles of the universe by worrying about the dimensions of the pyramid of Cheops." -- Ludwig Von Mises
avariceichiban 1 month ago
@shanedk The homicide rate in the relevant counties, Monterey County and Nevada County, were 609 and 89 respectively. In California as a whole, which is obviously misleading because it isn't gold rush-specific, it was 65.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow But that's exactly my point: He said that "many communities" had murder rates of 200, and then compared that to an overall average. As you just showed, you can pretty much always cherry-pick whatever community you want to show whatever you want.
If you have a community of 500 people, and there's ONE murder, there's your murder rate of 200 per 100,000. And he doesn't even say WHAT communities; if you can draw your own after the fact you can conclude whatever you want.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Sorry, that was you; don't know why I thought you were someone else there for a minute.
shanedk 1 month ago
@dbrandow Also keep in mind that in every respect the Gold Rush should have been a worst-case scenario, for reasons I've already outlined.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk The point you asked me to make was that the existence of non-governmental supplied mechanisms to stop crime, specifically homicides, didn't work. The homicide rates were demonstrably extremely high in the counties affected by the Gold Rush. QED.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow Whereas you yourself just showed you can cherry-pick even HIGHER crime rates in the modern US.
Sounds less like Q.E.D. and more like F.A.I.L.!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Ummm...no. The only data I stated about the modern US was for New Orleans, which was under 50, which was lower than either of the two counties I stated for the Gold Rush era. Try to keep up.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow You yourself admitted that Monterey County was 609.
All this is bullshit anyway. What you need to do is compare crime before these mechanisms were in place to after. You can only use your figures as support if you establish a proper baseline, which you haven't.
shanedk 1 month ago
Great video. Comprehensive, informative, and to the point. Saved me the trouble of having to say all this myself.
UnderTheTunk 1 month ago
@shanedk Do I have any data to support the assertion that most regulation is done by governments, not by private enterprise? No, I haven't been able to find any, despite how reasonably obvious it is. If you can show evidence that I'm wrong about it, though, I'd be very interested in seeing it.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow It's YOUR claim. If you can't support it, the claim fails.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk No, the claim doesn't fail, it remains unsupported. Just because I haven't discovered a source which documents what percentage of countries have public regulators doesn't mean that the percentage is necessarily low, it just means that we don't know what it is. As an example, to the best of my knowledge, all of the OECD countries use primarily public regulators.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow "No, the claim doesn't fail, it remains unsupported."
All unsupported claims fail. Skepticism 101.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Then the claim that most countries have private regulators also fails.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow Nope, 'cause I've mentioned several.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk And when did "several" countries comprise a majority? Did the number of countries in the world get drastically reduced while I wasn't looking? All you'd have done would have been to put us on equal footing, since I also mentioned a number of countries, specifically the OECD countries, that are primarily use public regulators.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow Several PRIVATE REGULATORS, MORON--NOT several countries! Do try to follow the chain of conversation, it makes things so much easier...
"I also mentioned a number of countries, specifically the OECD countries, that are primarily use public regulators."
Primarily != solely. You deny that these countries even have ANY private regulators, as you yourself just summarized: "the claim that most countries have private regulators also fails."
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Fair enough, I cited the claim correctly. My claim was that most countries have primarily public regulators, which you feel fails due to lack of evidence. The opposing claim, which would thus also fail, would more properly read "that most countries have primarily private regulators".
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow Sorry, that should have read "I cited the claim incorrectly".
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow I NEVER stated that most countries don't have public regulators; never said or implied ANYTHING OF THE KIND.
You're just making stuff up now.
shanedk 1 month ago
@lordthawkeye Are there cases where regulators have been corrupted by special interests? Absolutely, corruption is everywhere, its part of the human condition, and it must be rooted out continuously. But the notion that virtually all of them are entirely beholden to outside sources is very much a conspiracy theory, not reality. And the answer to 'the cops are corrupt' is to fix the corruption, not stop having police, that's crazy.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow "Are there cases where regulators have been corrupted by special interests? Absolutely, corruption is everywhere"
Where's the corruption in UL? Or in Met Labs? Or in IEEE? Or in ISO?
You only have corruption where you have power.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk And you have power where the regulations you enforce have a large economic impact, regardless of whether the regulator is private or public. The only difference is that corruption in public regulators is more likely to be discovered because of public disclosure laws.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow "And you have power where the regulations you enforce have a large economic impact, regardless of whether the regulator is private or public."
Show me ONE case of it happening with a private regulator. And there are PLENTY big ones to choose from: UL, IEEE, ISO...
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Figured I'd pick the first one on your list. Skipping a variety of lawsuits against UL, the most obvious would be J.F. Meacham's allegations against UL. And again, the ones you've chosen are self-policing organizations, so you wouldn't expect to see of corruption, after all, when you get to make your own rules, its pretty hard to get caught breaking them.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow No one takes Meacham seriously. He "waited" over THIRTY YEARS to make the allegations, when he KNEW the records would no longer be available.
UL underwrites the safety directly (hence the name). If they allow ANY bad product through, they share liability for the damages. NO amount of bribery would be enough to cover the lawsuits!
shanedk 1 month ago
@dbrandow "after all, when you get to make your own rules, its pretty hard to get caught breaking them."
UL's rules are so good that LOTS of government codes just use those instead of creating their own.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk
Ironically, he just made a criticism of gov't. Last I checked, isn't that "making their own rules" what GovCo does? Hell, how many politicians does he know went to jail for war crimes because of Iraq, Libya, etc?
vspqbd 1 month ago
@vspqbd "He" doesn't like it when governments rewrite the rules to suit their own purposes any more than when other organizations do it.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow The difference is, you can choose whether or not to use those private organizations. If UL starts dropping the ball or becomes corrupt, Met Labs will HAPPILY step in and do it better.
There is no such option, no such incentive, and no such protection with government.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk The counter to that is that government regulators are forced to be open about their dealing through freedom of information acts, no such equivalent exists for private regulators. So any behind the scenes dealing that happens in private regulators is dramatically more likely to remain hidden. There are pros and cons with both approaches.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow "The counter to that is that government regulators are forced to be open about their dealing through freedom of information acts"
Yeah, those have NEVER been stifled, or stonewalled, or opposed in ANY WAY...geez...
Most of those take YEARS of fighting in the courts to get the government to comply with them, and so they can only be done by people who can afford to do it.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Are freedom of information acts perfect, or perfectly enforced? Of course not. But the simple fact is that they exist for public regulators, and are largely effective, and that no counterpart exists for private regulators.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow Again, you don't HAVE to deal with private organizations. Governments operate and are funded by FORCE. If you don't see how that makes such a big difference, you're a sociopath; that's all there is to it.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Governments, most specifically public regulators in the context of this discussion, impose regulations that benefit either all of us or at the very least the vast majority of us. They keep products like food and drugs and air travel etc. safe (or at least safer) to use and consume, they act as a check on private industry. Not perfect, mind you, but better than the unregulated state we were in beforehand.
I won't address your ridiculous, unfounded, unjustified character attack.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow "Governments, most specifically public regulators in the context of this discussion, impose regulations that benefit either all of us or at the very least the vast majority of us."
Bullshit dogmatism from a fantasist in a dream world. They're made to benefit special interests, and they ALL--EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM--give big corporations an advantage over smaller business. It can NEVER be any other way.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Again, you sound like a conspiracy theorist. Where is your evidence?
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow NO, LIAR, no conspiracy theories--do you say that about EVERY concept you don't agree with?
Every regulation increases the cost of doing business. EVERY SINGLE ONE. So big corporations are able to absorb those costs while the small businesses end up being cash-strapped. That's why the big corps lobby FOR these regulations!
shanedk 1 month ago
@dbrandow "I won't address your ridiculous, unfounded, unjustified character attack."
I might have known you'd whine and wrongly call it a character attack instead of responding to the point.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Um....I very clearly did respond to the point. I had a long paragraph responding to the point, and a very short sentence pointing out your character attack.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow "I very clearly did respond to the point."
Where? 'Cause I read it again, and I don't see it. I saw platitudes and unfounded assertions about the wonderful things the saints in government do, while YOU completely avoided the point about government force and its detrimental effects.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk The fact that government regulators keep food, drugs, air travel etc. safe is a fact, not an unfounded assertion. That's what they do. There is plenty of evidence documenting how they have acted to discover and then remove unsafe food out of the supply chain, for example.
I did address the point by explaining how these institutions you feel forced upon you are beneficial. Having something good forced on you isn't particularly onerous.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow Finally, they are not forced on you any more than the rules of a club are forced on you when you join it. The only difference here is that you don't have an initial choice of which club (country) to join, you are born in one. But by the time you are an adult, you can choose which club (county) to join, which set of rules you wish to abide by. If you don't like any of the clubs' (countries') rules, then yes, you'd be forced to pick the one you disliked the least. Suck it up.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow "Finally, they are not forced on you"
Either complete naivete or astounding dogmatism. ALL government is force. If you don't comply with these regulations, government comes after you.
The rest of your post is just pathetic, long-refuted "social contract" garbage.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Quote mine. Either cite the whole sentence or don't cite it. In context, its clear that I do agree that it is force, but its force that you have implicitly agreed to accept.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow Fine: "Finally, they are not forced on you any more than the rules of a club are forced on you when you join it."
You're still FUCKING WRONG!!! And no, I have NOT FUCKING AGREED TO IT! Social contract BULLSHIT again. NO thinking person who isn't a complete government tool accepts it!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Again, by choosing to remain here, you have implicitly agreed to abide by those rules or the known consequences of not abiding by those rules and getting caught. If you did not at least implicitly agree to them, if you viewed them as completely unacceptable, you would have left.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow "Again, by choosing to remain here, you have implicitly agreed"
Such implicit agreements are SOUNDLY rejected by contract law.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Sorry, buzzer on that one. Clearly the courts have agreed to the ability of governments to enforce their laws on their populations without having their populations sign an agreement to abide by them.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow And, of course, the concept is an extremely general one in our daily lives. Look up "implied-in-fact contract".
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow An implied-in-fact contract requires a meeting of the minds, which does NOT exist in this case--it CERTAINLY doesn't exist for a newborn baby! And you claim this contract is from birth. Moreover, the person must take some SPECIFIC action to indicate acceptance of the contract, and you're basing it on a LACK of action: i.e., you haven't moved away. They also aren't valid for many transactions, such as real estate.
Try again, and do more than look at Wikipedia.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk More quote mining, and yes, I'll cite Wikipedia again (from the Supreme Court): "...is inferred, as a fact, from conduct of the parties showing, in the light of the surrounding circumstances, their tacit understanding". The conduct of staying in the country when you have the ability to leave demonstrates tacit understanding.
The fact that implicit contracts do not apply to real estate is, well, irrelevant.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow "More quote mining"
Look, you FUCKING LIAR, I've been MORE than patient with you, but you've been in SERIOUS breach of Rule #5! It is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE to commit quote-mining when people can JUST READ THE POST DIRECTLY ABOVE IT! This is your FIRST warning. Continue in this despicable, dishonest behavior and YOU WILL BE BLOCKED.
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk Then, as noted above with my comment about the three dots, you are guilty of the same infraction.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow No, because you DID quote-mine Wikipedia by leaving out a phrase that completely changes the meaning. That's COMPLETELY different from just giving a reference quote to the post DIRECTLY ABOVE that you're responding to.
You have NO justification for this pathetic attempt at character assassination.
SECOND warning.
shanedk 1 month ago
@dbrandow Interesting how you left out the part about ""founded upon a meeting of minds." YOU'RE the goddamn quote-miner, you FUCKING LIAR!
Also, it goes on to say: "Although the parties may not have exchanged words of agreement, THEIR ACTIONS may indicate that an agreement existed anyway."
And how about this: "...acceptance is being made by beginning a specified task."
YOU FUCKING LIAR!!!
shanedk 1 month ago
@shanedk I was completing the quote, so obviously I didn't need to fill in the first part. That's the what three dots means. Welcome to the English language.
dbrandow 1 month ago
@dbrandow "I was completing the quote, so obviously I didn't need to fill in the first part. "
No, LIAR, since the excised phrase makes the phrase say the OPPOSITE of what you claim it did.
YOU COMMITTED QUOTE-MINING, LIAR.
Third AND FINAL warning.
shanedk 1 month ago