Alan C.

Is a mini ICE AGE on the way? Scientists warn the sun will 'go to sleep' in 2030 and could cause temperatures to plummet

I think Murray Rothbard addressed this in The Ethics of Liberty. An illegitimate property claim (ie. acquisition via expropriation rather than via homestead or exchange) would become nullified and revert to an unowned state until homesteaded by the first appropriator, or returned to whomever can prove legitimate title. Resistance to violence by conservative forces can be effectively overcome only by depriving them of resources through economic ostracism and non-cooperation. I wouldn't resort to violence unless no other option was available (eg. your life was in immediate danger).

Venezuela’s Largest Bill Buys 16 U.S. Cents After 30% Plunge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-MLwPW86Rs

The notion that Walmart would "buy up all the land" is hyperbolic nonsense. The amount of land that Walmart owns is a speck on a map compared to the amount of land that the government has annexed, yet you think Walmart is a threat. Nobody is forced to shop at Walmart; people do so willingly because they prefer it to the available alternatives. Walmart isn't going to "buy up all the land" and sit on it. Only governments do that. Firms cannot enjoy limitless growth. No single firm can, or ever will, grow so large as to encompass a country or planet. The reason why is because as firms grow in size, their internal transaction costs become increasingly dissociated from market prices. Eventually, they become unable to calculate profit and loss and lose the ability to economize and determine if output exceeds input. Large companies have the 'economies of scale' to absorb the costs of taxes, regulatory compliance, and lawsuits. Smaller companies don't. Taxes, regulations, and lawsuits are barriers put in place by governments, not markets. Those barriers create cartel and oligolopy-like conditions which allow large companies to thrive and grow larger. Without those cumbersome and onerous barriers, there would be more small companies, and more competition.

I don't expect people to come to that realization. The inmates are running the asylum. Peter Schiff has been predicting QE4 for some time, as have several other investors who understand Austrian economics.

It's important to understand the reasons why population growth becomes stymied. While it's something we might expect to see from 'K' as people pursue quality over quantity, we can't simply conclude that it's because of 'K.' During certain periods of famine in China and Russia, there were precipitous drops in population due to mass starvation. It wasn't the result of 'K.'

Peter Schiff thinks that voters rejected the bailout because of the included austerity measures, and not because they didn't want the bailout. I think he is right. They want a bailout so that they can postpone having to deal with the underlying problem. Sooner or later, productive people around the world are going to have to stop appeasing parasites.

I think that your concern is misplaced. You should be asking how you'd compete with government if you're concerned about destroying companies. Microsoft didn't destroy Netscape. Consumers chose IE over Netscape. Email "destroyed" the Post Office. Does that concern you?

Stocks in the U.S. are vastly overvalued due to the availability of cheap credit. I expect a severe market correction at some point. Not sure what's going on in China.

By offering something better, or catering to a niche market. This notion that giving away a free product that improves people's lives is a bad thing is ridiculous. I thought that socialism was about getting free stuff like free education, free health-care, and free retirement. Firefox and Chrome are free, and they're both superior to IE. Google offers free products like Google Talk and GMail. Skype is free. Steam is free, has built-in voip, cloud storage for screenshots, game guides, and mods, and offers a bunch of free-to-play games. LibreOffice is free.

There you have the reason why socialism never lifts the masses out of poverty.

Increasing taxes on the rich doesn't reduce my tax burden. I'm not interested in having a debate over who should be taxed and at what rate because it's irrelevant. It's obvious that you're very frustrated, but your ire is directed at the wrong people. The "super rich" aren't the reason why you're in the situation that you're in. As far as a person's "worth" goes, people don't get to tell others what they think they're worth; other people decide what they're worth. That's how it works. GDP is a meaningless statistic for several reasons. GDP can increase while people become more impoverished and decrease while people become more prosperous. GDP doesn't make any relative comparisons of living standards and doesn't differentiate productive from unproductive. Just because people are spending and consuming doesn't mean that they're better off, and just because they're working doesn't mean that they're productive. The economy isn't static, and so your comparison to a cake doesn't apply. I don't have the exact figure, but the company that I work for cost tens of millions of dollars to build (including the actual office building and everything inside). It was financed by a small group of investors, the wealthiest of whom had accumulated capital from previous business ventures. Computers and electronics rapidly improve every year while prices decline. Even the poor can afford computers and mobile phones. Conversely, health-care is prohibitively expensive, and becomes more costly every year, because of regulatory mandates. Without the State, I'd expect the price, availability, and variety of health-care to mimic that of computers and electronics. So, if a family member or relative gets it then that's bad, but if a stranger gets it then that's good? Who should get it?

NYPD accused of destroying evidence showing cops issued bogus summonses to meet quota It's all about revenue generation.

The implication of your statement is that it's not private property unless "the workers" own it. "The workers" are free to pool their capital and own their own firm if they want. Super rich individuals do, in fact, serve others or they go broke. In a free-market economy, people are rewarded according to the value they provide to others. If you're talking about people who enrich themselves through State privilege (ie. rent-seekers) then you're talking about crooks.

Bernie Sanders and his ilk are nothing but skidmarks in the toilet bowl of humanity. They're a bunch of frustrated losers who know nothing about anything, posses no marketable skills, and are driven by envy and spite. How do you figure that I'd be a net beneficiary of rich people being expropriated? I have a good career, earn a decent living, and live comfortably (better than my parents) because people who were born before me accumulated large quantities of capital and built something with it.

Check out these previous threads. The State claims 7.7% unemployment while 89M not in labor force 86M Full-Time Private-Sector Workers Sustain 148M Benefit Takers There Will Be No Economic Recovery, Prepare Yourself Accordingly Nearly Half of U.S. Lives in Household Receiving Government Benefit

Bernie Sanders says he'd raise taxes

Nobody complains about too much soap, tooth paste, or toilet paper. When people think of consumerism, maybe the mean the mobs who stampede over each other and knock down displays at the mall during Black Friday so that they can grab sneakers, TVs, microwaves, and waffle irons, or the folks who camp out in front of Best Buy and Apple to buy the latest iteration of the newest smart phone. Yeah, they're probably trying to fill a void in their lives.

From their Indiegogo page: Nope. The problem is that millions of people are consuming what others produce, while producing nothing, themselves. If governments weren't able to borrow money, people would be forced to act with prudence and foresight, and to save for their own retirement.

There are two issues. My opinion of people who worry about consumerism is that they're projecting to alleviate their own guilt for consuming. My opinion of having items mass produced is that it improves the aggregate standard of living.

Yes. However, people who make decisions based upon whether or not they believe God will be angry are not making moral decisions. They're making decisions based upon self-preservation rather than moral considerations.

I've read negative things about melatonin. Try chamomile instead. Also, avoid caffeine.

The symptoms you're describing reminded me of a co-worker who was on sick-leave for months due to similar symptoms. When she returned, she told me that she had Mononucleosis. What is your diet like?

Record 93,626,000 Americans Not in Labor Force; Participation Rate Declines to 62.6% Almost a half-million people in a matter of months. Government claims unemployment rate is 5.3%