Daniel Unplugged

For supposed anarchists, they are behaving a lot like sheep. They repeat the same line over and over again in unison. It seems like all traces of individuality have been erased from them. BTW, I have no idea what this was about. I just realized it was called the An Com conference. That sheds some light on their chanting.

They're definitely not going to ban it now.

I only got about 30 seconds into that. He lost me when he said he wants capitalism overthrown.

Just so you know it's Stef not Steph.

With regards to the theory the entirety of 9/11 was orchestrated by the government, I consider it highly implausible. Think of how many people would have needed to be in on it. Generals, pilots, engineers, pilots, CIA, air traffic controllers, media, clean up workers, courts, politicians etc. It's just too large a conspiracy to keep quiet. Convincing that many people to participate in such an evil act, and having them keep quiet about it, is just so far out there, I can't consider it credible. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe a word the government says, but even I have my limits.

Manipulative is more like it, they know exactly what they are doing.

Yes, inflation is a tax, but it is a tax on anyone who holds dollars, not on income. We cannot know how much Walmart wages would be without the minimum wage, only that they would probably be lower. I agree 100% with everything you just said. The theft is proportional to the number of dollars held.Most people have no need to worry about the inflation tax, since most people hold bugger all dollars. If someone only keeps $1000 in their bank account/wallet, and inflation is 3%, then they only pay $30 in inflation taxes each year.It is also the easiest tax to avoid, just don't hold anymore dollars than you really need to. Keep your money in gold/shares/anything of real value.Actually, shares don't work because you pay capital gains tax when you sell at the inflated price.

Real wage: A wage adjusted for the change in purchasing power of the dollar. I want to counter the argument that inflation hurts employees by reducing their purchasing power. Since all money is the same, inflation affects all prices equally. This includes the price of labor. If an employee does not get an inflation matching pay rise, it only appears that the reduction in his real wage is caused by inflation, but in reality, other market forces caused it. His employer took advantage (I'm not saying there is anything wrong with it) of the opportunity to reduce his real wage cost. Since it is for all intents any purposes illegal to reduce someones nominal wage, this is the only mechanism that allows real wages to fall in line with market forces. If the market didn't demand the real wage reduction, his wage would have increased in line with inflation.

A couple of points: Yes, aluminum is not hard enough to cut steel, but the beams were not cut, they were torn. It is a different thing. Note that bird flesh and bone is not hard enough to cut aluminum, buy the bird clearly tore the wing of that plane. Where the steel beams are still intact, the aluminum wings would have torn and passed in between the beams, they were traveling pretty quick remember. Also steel does not need to melt for its structural integrity to be compromised. As steel heats up, it becomes very soft, even if it doesn't melt completely. Lead is softer than steel, but a lead bullet will shear through a steel plate, if traveling fast enough. The maximum speed of the plane at sea level may be 414 mph, but the Boeing specs would be cruising speed. If a plane dives, it could travel much faster than its cruising speed.

The author of the article is trying to manipulate the readers into believing something that is not true. Here is how I know. His premise is that the amount of lead PER CAPITA causes the crime rate. Hence if a city's population doubles, and the per capita emissions of lead stays the same, the crime rate will not change, even though double the amount of lead is in the air. He has blatently demonstrated that lead emissions do not cause crime. What is more disturbing though, is that the article is from BBC, and people actually fall for this crap. Debunked!

Correlation is not causation.

Me too. I was just making the point that human wants are not infinite.Definition of capitalism for the purposes of this thread: Goods and services being produced to be traded, for profit.Trade and capitalism, as per the definition above would cease if: 1% of the population can produce enough goods for the entire population and, they are willing to do so for free. Absolutely no suggestion of coercion is inherant. What we are describing would be a charity based society. I cannot say with any degree of certainty that the whole thing will not eventually collapse due to the lack of market forces keeping productivity at such high levels. As soon as things become scarce again, the market would return.

The government has made becoming a capitalist so difficult through their collectivist indoctrination centres, regulations and taxes, that few are willing and able to tread there. The resulting change in the relative quantities of capitalists and workers has caused the increase in inequality we have seen in the last 50 years. Capitalists are in demand, workers are not. Ask them this. How can is possibly come about that we buy heaps of stuff from China, and they don't buy the equivalent amount of stuff from us. Isn't that how trade works? Then tell them about the federal reserve.

I have thought about this before, and consider it possible in the distant future. I can conceive a world in which consumer goods, (at the risk of sounding like Karl Marx) are superabundant. Say provictivity increases 1000 fold over the next 1000 years, which would not be difficult if free markets were allowed to operate, and that consumer wants max out (on average) at about 10 times current consumption (really, how much stuff do people want). It would only be necessary for 1% of the population to work to provide those goods. I can easily conceive that 1% of the population would spend their lives 'working' for free out of the love of having people enjoy their products. Look at Steve Jobs, he didn't create the i phone to increase his consumption (he already had way more money than he could ever spend), he did it because he wanted to make an awesome gadget for everybody to use. There are many people like him. Sure, there are some things that may not come into super abundance for a long long time, such as tourist trips to mars, but then again, who am I to place an artificial limit on the efficiency of markets.Remember, capitalism is only necessary (to efficiently allocate resources), when resources are scarse, without scarcity, trade, and minimizing resource consumption are pointless. Look at air, it is super abundant, trying to sell it, or to minimise its usage, is pointless. Nothing, having more stuff than you need is great, you dont want to be living on the edge of not having enough, but do you want more stuff than you want? No, seroiusly. If Ferrari's were superabundant, would you want 100 of them? I suspect a different color one for each day of the week, would be all you would want to get. Because not everyone has read the prevoius thread, and they may wish to start a new thread in their own words, perhaps going down a slightly different path.Why is there a need for people to comment in threads that they consider exhausted, and clearly have no interest in?

If it was permitted to progress naturally (not saying the Chinese government allowed it to), then the following would have occurred:China would experience inflation, and Britain would experience deflation (what you said). This would make Chinese goods more expensive and British goods cheaper. This change in relative prices would decrease Chinese exports and increase Chinese imports, and bring the trade back into balance. The same thing (should) happens in modern economies. If a country exports more than it imports, its currency should rise in value until goods exported=goods imported. Of course, (especially the Chinese) governments mess this process up by fixing the value of their currencies, resulting in trade imbalances. Also, (again, especially the Chinese) central banks are willing to hold vast amounts of foreign currency, in order to ensure a trade surplus, and, (especially the United States) governments are willing to borrow vast amounts of money from foreign countries, to ensure they can consume more than they produce.Bottom line is, all of the imbalances in international trade are caused by governments, not the free market. The purpose of a free market is to bring things into balance, and without government interference, they would. I actually suspect that the Chinese Government is intentionally destroying the US industrial base, by ensuring chinese products are cheaper than they should be. They know from their experience with socialism within their own country, that if you give people things for free, they will lose their incentive to, and then their ability to, produce it themselves. Very little in international politics is not preplanned.So, at the time, gold was money, and, the Chinese government was perfectly capable of producing inflation (what you said). May I ask how they would accomplish this?

hi kevin.podcast link from fdr homepage is now working. Thanks.

The principle is the same.

I'm still having dramas with the podcasts link, maybe it's because I'm browsing on my mobile. All the other links work ok. "The webpage at http://http//www.fdrpodcasts.com may be temporarily down....."

Hi Kevin. I just tried the podcasts link from the FDR homepage. It doesn't seem to be working. I went to the website manually, and everything is fine. Website looks great, thanks.If you need any funding for web hosting of upload, I can help with that.I think it would be good if the FDR logo in the top left corner linked straight to the FDR homepage.

Unfortunately, 2 seconds thought is more than most people are capable of.

Are you telling me that the Chinese traders did not return to China with their pockets full of gold? Seems like balanced trade to me.It was necessary for Britian to produce the gold in order to purchase the tea and porcelain.

I agree with dsayers, the system cannot continue without the support of a significant of support of the population. If a person supports statist behavior, such as locking tax evaders in jail, they are morally responsible for it. Not as responsible as the leaders or the enforcers, but responsible nonetheless. As there is with most major evils, and disasters, there is usually plenty of blame to go around.

Sorry, I forgot which method he chose. If he chose to overdose on painkillers instead, and made a prior arrangement with an undertaker to remove his body, hence preventing the family from stumbling upon it, would that make a difference? I think that choosing the gun method was very inconsiderate, for lack of a better word, and not justified.

So there hasn't been another 9/11 therefore the policies are good and should continue to be expanded. Of course, if there was another 9/11, obviously the policies would need to be expanded since they prevent terrorism. See how it works?

In the bridge scenario, I accept that there is a forced positive obligation onto others, but I do not accept that there is in all cases. Using the example of your grandfather, do you think that he forced positive obligations onto others? I would argue that he did not. Yes, the family arranged a funeral, and may have paid for it, but i dont think that can be classified as forced of inflicted. They chose (as of course they would) to do so. The other forced obligation one may refer to is that his suicide will result in his loved ones grieving at his passing. I don't accept that either, since I do not accept that he was obliged to ensure that his family does not grieve for him. For all intents and purposes you can't, unless would you have prior information that they are ALWAYS irrational. An important part of freedom is the freedom to be irrational and to make mistakes. Denying someone that right is very anti-freedom. Would you deny a person the right to smoke, since it is 'irrational'? Do you believe that one person has the right, to decide for someone else, what is rational, and to force their decision on them?