Julien

How bad is broadband competition in the US? Why are speeds and prices not as attractive as in other countries? What are the actual impediments for entrepreneurs? How significant are those compared to natural barriers (large investment, uncertainty, natural monopoly theory)? As far as I'm aware, the closest writing on the topic is Prof DiLorenzo on natural monopoly (gas, electricity, etc) which takes a historical look. There is also a bit of writing (Cato, Henderson) on phone and cable deregulation. Do you know any good writing on the topic of broadband specifically? Would this make a good FDR show topic? Cheers, Julien

Thanks for the review. I see Lost in a very different light now, in particular the button pushing. Stef's analysis of that part reminded me of a whimsical cartoon I watched growing up (in France). I have to share ;-) One of the relevant sayings (illustrated below): "It's better to keep pumping - even to no effect - than risking that something worse might happen if you didn't." (source and other illustrations and nonsensical quotes in french) Cheers, Julien

Thanks for sharing. For some reason, this post didn't come up when I searched "Don Jon" on the FDR forums. I only found it after posting my own recommendation and paging through the forum. The movie made a strong impression on me too and I feel it illustrates many topics discussed on FDR.

I think this movie is a good example of peaceful relationship by contrast. It also illustrates how our physical attraction does not serve our long-term interest well. I'm curious what other FDR listeners thought about it and whether you would have recommendations for similar movies. Below is my review: This movie is only superficially about porn addiction. Instead it is about empathy and reason in relationships. Spoilers ahead. On one hand, you have a girlfriend (Scarlett Johansson) which suffers from the pretty girl syndrome (the beautiful, wealthy and the powerful never hear the truth). She is used to guys bending over backwards to her wishes and she expects it. She throws tantrums and threatens to break up whenever there is a significant disagreements, which leads the boyfriend (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, main character) to not be honest. Most importantly, she avoids any depth of discussion to understand where the conflict comes from. She holds irrational beliefs which she is not ready to reason or argue about. On the other hand, a more mature and wise woman (Julianne Moore), who is not afraid to speak the truth, helps him towards self-knowledge. She asks questions (in a Socratic way), isn't afraid of taboo topics, and does not punish him for being honest. She cares more about the person and the connection, and less about appearances or preconceptions. She helps him understand himself and grow. This movie offers a stark contrast between those two relationships, the poor role that the main character's family plays and his progress towards self-knowledge and empathy. Cheers, Julien

Regarding podcast FDR2508 at By the way, it would be great if you used consistent reference of FDRxyz codes on Youtube as well as your podcast. Hi Stefan, Good episode. Two possible corrections or additions: According to Bob Murphy, it's not clear that default on debt is unconstitutional: http://consultingbyrpm.com/blog/2013/10/is-it-unconstitutional-for-the-federal-government-to-default-on-its-debt.html According to David Friedman, Social Security payments are not subject to debt limit (when Treasury pays Social Security, this makes room to borrow more): http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/2013/10/social-security-and-debt-limit.html Cheers, Julien

Hi Stefan, Good show. I'm glad to hear that your treatment is going relatively well, considering. One minor quip on your "invisible gun" segment in this episode. While I understand that it is a shorthand for underlying ideas (UPB, individual rights, etc.), saying that paying taxes is involontary because otherwise they point a gun at you seems incorrect. A collection agency for a voluntary service may also employ violence as a last resort. The root of the issue is whether government is voluntary, not whether it uses a gun. I just wanted to offer you this feedback about your messaging. Unfortunately, I don't have a suggestion for a better shorthand.Cheers, Julien

Hi, I am trying to reconcile some observation of Brill's essay (1, 2) with the data and analysis in Stefan podcasts on healthcare (4) and Dr Doug McGuff's excellent presentation on the effects of piled up interventions (3). Most observations are consistent (cost shifting, small practices closing, crowded ER), but some stick out: A) Brill notes a number of hospital making nice profits. Stefan and McGuff show that Medicare prices and various regulations make it hard for hospitals to survive financially. B) Brill observes that some hospitals advertise to attract Medicare patients. But Stefan and McGuff note that such patients are a financial loss center (price controls), C) Brill points out that not only uninsured patients pay close to the crazy official price (recorded in chargemaster), but many insurances do too nowadays (those without enough leverage to negotiate rates closer to low Medicare prices). Stefan on the other hand claimed that hospitals charge the Medicare rate to insurances. Any clues how to reconcile both analyses and facts? Regards, Julien Couvreur [1] http://healthland.time.com/2013/02/20/bitter-pill-why-medical-bills-are-killing-us/ (very long essay for the Time by Steven Brill) [2] http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/02/26/172996963/episode-439-the-mysterious-power-of-a-hospital-bill (Steven Brill interview) [3] (Doug McGuff presentation)[4] FDR 2166, True News 46 and 47

Thanks. Both excellent points. I had taken the 15% funding figure at face value.

True, although I do see some reasonably critical ideas coming out of NPR Planet Money on occasion (pointing out negative effects of car dealership regulations for instance, but never going as far as pointing out foundation of coercion in the State). Also, it is worth pointing out that about 15% of PBS's funding comes from government (according to their page). This can be interpreted in two ways: see how much effect such little funding has, or with such little funding you would hope for some independence to remain.

Worth watching: http://video.pbs.org/video/2296684923 It depicts the rhetoric and superficial analysis which is fed through mainstream media. Unfortunately it contains so many fallacies, non sequiturs and downright deception, that it's too long a list to address. Consider it a mental obstacle-course for the astute voluntaryist audience, to practice their analysis skills and understand the popular mythology. Including some of my notes/comments: The analogy of Monopoly board game is correct in one sense (rule making matters), but deeply incorrect in others (you win in Monopoly by having more money than other players, you don't make money by serving others, monopoly is a win-lose game with fixed wealth). This segment also seeds the idea that rich individuals are jerks. Nevermind that in real life the main way people get rich is by providing valuable service to many (but that kind of helping doesn't count). The theme continues with a look at income concentration. Of course, this framing ignore the issue of real standards of living, and whether they rose during that period. Also, this ignore that rich people do you no harm and cannot prevent you from improving your life, except for political means. The show goes on to consider undue political influence of rich individuals in rigging the game. Sounds promising, but the entire argument rests on outrage. So it simultaneously complains about rigging the game (not having a rule of law) and lack of political pull for welfare recipients (education, food stamps, public housing, etc). More on that later. While many of the examples (bailed out bankers, hedge fund managers, etc) are clearly gaining massive advantage from the political system, the show focuses on dergulation and libertarian philosophy as the culprit. Not mention of central banking cartel. Segment on Koch, Ayn Rand, Paul Ryan. Somehow, Ayn Rand is discredited, republicans are libertarians and the government is too libertarians (which is the source of the problems). Clearly, the welfare state is needed, staring with education. Never mind that amount of taxes going into government schools clearly isn't the problem (see amount spent per child and that private schools get better results for less in controlled experiment). Mention of high cost of college, with no mention of government policies inflating said prices or that price labels are not actual prices paid. So clearly people talking about reducing government spending and those programs are greedy jerks.No mention of spending per capita, debt per capita, size of regulations. Republicains and libertarians only talk of reducing taxes. 2.6 trillion of government debt attributed to tax cuts, including Bush's. Nevermind that our debt is 16 trillion, not including unfunded liabilities (80 to 200 trillion). Also, let's not consider overall spending and what good it does. Looking at tax rates of richest over time (falling), but not tax amounts and share of taxes paid. Brief class warfare argument which falls into relativistic morals and rhetoric (if the rich can argue about defending what they earned, then the poor surely has equivalent claim to taxing the rich "fairly"). Overall, the show brilliantly stitches the oft-repeated story. It hits on most popular themes and myths. Never stopping on any one argument for analysis, but offering a mesmerising and agile flow.

Stephan mentions the two famous experiments (Milgram and Stanford prison experiment) in this show. He uses those to illustrate the vulnerability of individuals to authority, in the broader context of most present societies being already primed for fascism (no resistance to authority). I wonder if there is any evidence that peaceful education and upbringing has any effect on such experiments. Are voluntarists or voluntarism-raised kids actually less vulnerable to authority figures in such experiments? Thanks, Julien