It's a lot easier to be a corporate thug when you can socialize the costs. United Fruit company would have been less likely to engage in shenanigans against Arbenz if the taxpayer funded CIA wasn't doing their dirty work for them. It's a lot easier to be aggressive when the money collected is taken through coercive means.
The fact is if the government didn't steal and commit fraud, and actually enforced those rules, there wouldn't be big corporations.
But then there also would be a way for assholes to impose behavior constraints on other people and force them to do things - which neglectfully causes a government enforced oversized monopoly in the industry governing such behavior.
You are clearly a figment of highly creative imagination.
No corporation has more power than the government. If that were true, corporations would collect my taxes and enforce laws. Corporations use government force to make them big.
New bill to reduce energy: all the already compliant corporations get to eat up the non compliant ones. Or let's steal from the public and give it to corn growers, or the medical industry, or defense contractors.
Malthus' assumption was based upon an incorrect assumption about the possibility of food productivity growing geometrically. He was a reverend, not an expert
Not forever, but then again nor will humans. The amount of food that can be grown on one acre is greater than in Malthus' day. But from a free market perspective; if you got the government out of the way the market will determine prices. People would have to customize their diets to foods that made the most efficient use of the land. Should also be noted that more economically advanced a society gets the lower its birthrate tends to get. Economic advancement= less of a chance of overpopulation.
In a true Free Market, we'll end up with a lawless single corporation that owns everyone as it's slaves.
Benevolent regulation is needed, but we don't have that.
Malthus essentially argued that a population is limitied by it's food supply. Then he used data of his day to project a crisis in the future. He understood that if the food supply increased the population would increase. Until it outstripped the food supply again.
We grow more because we're using a finite resource (Petroleum) to fill the soil with nitrogen,
But in the process, we are destroying rhe soil.
Petroleum production has peaked and is going into decline. We may well see aggricultural production dropped below Malthus' level, if we don't prepare.
Wouldn't there be some benefit to getting rid of the central bank and ending fractional reserve banking. I'm just a lay person but seems that these are major tools of the globalists. If we get to "uppity" they use their power to contract the money supply and they exert influence on gov't to promote wars which drains us of our wealth. Adherence to the constitution and curbing the power of these banks seems a step in the right direction.
Attention Ron Paul lovers. Get organized and make a difference. Call each and every advertising customer from you local FOX news
( the commercials from thier show) and let them KNOW they are going to be BOYCOTTED by the same people who RAISED over $6.01 MILLION in 24 hours~! That will get attention!
I recomend the entire month of January! Whos' with me!?!?!?!
I read Adam Smith's book too, and it doesnt really hold in todays world... there is no mention of conflict of interest within goverments and their private "passtimes", although im certain it used to go on, just not on the scale that we are seeing today.
It's a lot easier to be a corporate thug when you can socialize the costs. United Fruit company would have been less likely to engage in shenanigans against Arbenz if the taxpayer funded CIA wasn't doing their dirty work for them. It's a lot easier to be aggressive when the money collected is taken through coercive means.
murphycline 3 years ago
The fact is if the government didn't steal and commit fraud, and actually enforced those rules, there wouldn't be big corporations.
But then there also would be a way for assholes to impose behavior constraints on other people and force them to do things - which neglectfully causes a government enforced oversized monopoly in the industry governing such behavior.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
You are clearly a figment of highly creative imagination.
No corporation has more power than the government. If that were true, corporations would collect my taxes and enforce laws. Corporations use government force to make them big.
New bill to reduce energy: all the already compliant corporations get to eat up the non compliant ones. Or let's steal from the public and give it to corn growers, or the medical industry, or defense contractors.
TabooRealities 4 years ago
Malthus' assumption was based upon an incorrect assumption about the possibility of food productivity growing geometrically. He was a reverend, not an expert
murphycline 4 years ago
Are you saying that food production can grow exponentially forever?
That for instance, one day the mass of corn produced can exceed the mass and volume of the universe?
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
Not forever, but then again nor will humans. The amount of food that can be grown on one acre is greater than in Malthus' day. But from a free market perspective; if you got the government out of the way the market will determine prices. People would have to customize their diets to foods that made the most efficient use of the land. Should also be noted that more economically advanced a society gets the lower its birthrate tends to get. Economic advancement= less of a chance of overpopulation.
murphycline 3 years ago
In a true Free Market, we'll end up with a lawless single corporation that owns everyone as it's slaves.
Benevolent regulation is needed, but we don't have that.
Malthus essentially argued that a population is limitied by it's food supply. Then he used data of his day to project a crisis in the future. He understood that if the food supply increased the population would increase. Until it outstripped the food supply again.
Malthus was right.
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
We grow more because we're using a finite resource (Petroleum) to fill the soil with nitrogen,
But in the process, we are destroying rhe soil.
Petroleum production has peaked and is going into decline. We may well see aggricultural production dropped below Malthus' level, if we don't prepare.
Monsanto sees no profit in preparing.
Weaseldog2001 3 years ago
Indeed!
BusTraveller 4 years ago
I've been planning to reduce my consumption for awhile now, but it's hard to do.
SonofNewo 4 years ago
Savvy dude, great points.... hmmm, gimme sometime to comtemplate "how to evolve beyond Adam Smith", I am sure there's material on Web to help!
I don't know the answer either!
I'll try to roll a response next weekend, in the meantime, Happy New Years, Aloha, USCM
Some kind of Maltheusian adjustment to Smith (regard consumption).
UnderseaCaveman 4 years ago
Wouldn't there be some benefit to getting rid of the central bank and ending fractional reserve banking. I'm just a lay person but seems that these are major tools of the globalists. If we get to "uppity" they use their power to contract the money supply and they exert influence on gov't to promote wars which drains us of our wealth. Adherence to the constitution and curbing the power of these banks seems a step in the right direction.
belle4221 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Attention Ron Paul lovers. Get organized and make a difference. Call each and every advertising customer from you local FOX news
( the commercials from thier show) and let them KNOW they are going to be BOYCOTTED by the same people who RAISED over $6.01 MILLION in 24 hours~! That will get attention!
I recomend the entire month of January! Whos' with me!?!?!?!
dianeliebowitz 4 years ago
I read Adam Smith's book too, and it doesnt really hold in todays world... there is no mention of conflict of interest within goverments and their private "passtimes", although im certain it used to go on, just not on the scale that we are seeing today.
BusTraveller 4 years ago