Search the Community

This government loves inside trading, imprisoning and fining businessmen and women. Try to help me understand why our government is wrong. Firstly, I should be free to say what I like to who I want. Secondly, the government has no right to tell me what I can and can’t buy or sell. Thirdly, I get that by buying or selling the CEO is actually delivering a price signal to the market. Additionally, it isn’t the government’s job to protect the investor. However, all that said, it seems incredibly in poor taste to me that the CEO can be (somewhat) insulated by his error (or not) at the expense of the investor. (Perhaps this is some sort of emotional little guy vs big guy thing and has no basis in reality, but I also can’t expect any shareholder (even the CEO) not to sell if they believe it is in their self interest.)

When he took office, Donald Trump did a complete about-face regarding his foreign policy with the middle east. Notably, he went from condemning Saudi Arabia to tacitly praising them. The US's commitment to regime change and meddling in the middle east makes little sense on the surface. There is no obvious strategic or economic value to these actions. The 'humanitarian' concerns are clearly a pretext. So what is the real reason for all of this? The answer is the petrodollar, and the maintenance of US economic supremacy. Saudi Arabia demands US dollars in exchange for oil. That's what truly gives the US dollar its value. That's what allows the US to have enormous trade deficits with other countries. For example, China sends its goods to the US in exchange for USD which can be spent on Saudi oil instead of US goods and services, creating a trade deficit advantageous to the US economy and its people. The rest of the world exports goods, the US exports dollars. In return, Saudi Arabia gets the support of the world's strongest military and an incredible amount of leverage with which to direct it. If the Saudis chose a different exchange currency, the US economy would quickly collapse. Without Saudi oil to back it, the US dollar would inflate wildly. The US would not be able to sustain it's huge trade deficits, and the people would suffer. The Saudi government is also in trouble. A huge proportion of Saudis rely on welfare, without that, a revolution from the underclass would be inevitable. The massive Saudi welfare state is sustained only by its oil exports. The Saudis have plenty of reasons to destabilize their middle eastern rivals and assert control over the region and its oil. Because of a largely useless populace, controlling and exporting more oil is the primary way that Saudi Arabia can expand its power and improve its economic situation. The world's largest importer of oil, China, would obviously rather trade in Yuan. China has made agreements with Russia for the trade of oil, at the expense of Saudi Arabia. Unless the Saudis accept Yuan, they will lose a great deal of China's oil trade to Russia. China is poised to take international economic supremacy from the US, and they will if the Saudis accept Yuan. To avoid this, the US must appease and assist Saudi Arabia against its rivals. Syrian insurgents are funded and supported by Saudi Arabia and the US in order to take control of more oil in the region. To maintain its precarious economic position, the US cannot allow China and Russia to control more of the world's oil and price it in Yuan. Failure means a devastating economic collapse for the US including hyper-inflation and a severe reduction in imports. The US would be unable to fund its incredibly expensive military, and the US would lose its position as the world's foremost superpower. Donald Trump has to make the difficult decision between catastrophic warfare and economic collapse, and it looks like he has already made his choice. https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/balance-of-trade https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-05-30/the-untold-story-behind-saudi-arabia-s-41-year-u-s-debt-secret https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/11/china-will-compel-saudi-arabia-to-trade-oil-in-yuan--and-thats-going-to-affect-the-us-dollar.html https://www.huffingtonpost.com/daniel-wagner/saudi-arabias-dark-role-i_b_3402447.html

The threat isn't coming from big government but vast extranational corporations that control governments and in certain cases have started wars to protect their interests, which are not yours or mine. For instance the second gulf war and the Afghanistan war, instigated by big oil as they couldn't get an agreement from the Taliban to put an oil pipeline through Northern Afghanistan. This to provide the US with an independent oil supply and a reliable supply route. For a historical example see The East India Company

My name is Saarang. I'm 24. I'm from Mumbai, India. I'm new here. I watch FDR videos from time to time. I also bought Mr. Molyneux book Practical Anarchy and I skimmed through it. I'm re-reading it now with a slower pace, but I have a historical doubt which is not covered in the book. It's about the feudal system in Medieval Europe. Is this an historical example of Anarchism? Some context first. In addition to being a fan of FDR, I'm a fan of two other people relevant in my question. First is Ayn Rand. Second is Shad M Brooks. The first person may answer your question as to why I am inquiring (though not yet accepting) topics like Anarchism. The second person has an online YouTube channel called Shadiversity on all things Medieval like Castles, Swords, Architecture, Best Medieval Weapons to fight Medieval Mythical Creatures....you get the point. He has a video on Castles and the relevance of their design to the political system prevalent in Europe i.e. feudalism. I am providing a link for that video below. It's 15 min long, but you can watch about half of it. Watch it first: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6nq6nFaCWM From what I understand from this video, feudalism was a political system in which political power was not executed by a king or monarch. Instead, political power was placed in the hands of local lords or nobles who ruled a certain portion of a kingdom locally. In theory, the king or monarch then supervised these nobles and is said to have conferred his political power to these feudal lords. In practice though, these lords had a lot of autonomy (like training their own armies and making their own rules), and even had many conflicts with each other in which the king could do nothing. And most people in Europe lived their daily lives under the protection of such feudal lords, also with some degree of autonomy or indirect freedom. Now, why am I saying that this system is the same as Anarchism? For that I must first, as is Objectivist tradition, begin by defining my basic concepts. Specifically, the concepts of "Ethics", "Politics" & "Economics". Ethics or Morality is the study of determining what Values and/or Goals one should pursue in life. Economics is the study of incentives i.e. given one knows what Goals or Values to aim, how to best provide incentive to other people (as well as yourself) in achieving those goals? Politics, according to me, is the concept bridging Ethics & Economics. On one hand, one can think of it as the economics of the use of physical force to achieve certain moral values. On the other hand, one can also think of it as the study of how to arrive in agreement socially on a certain moral value or goal, before one figures out how to achieve that goal. Now, systems like Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, etc. are informally referred to as Political Systems. But technically they are economic (or politico-economic) systems, not political systems i.e. they are incentive systems for people to follow in order to achieve certain political values. The political system may be referred as Libertarianism, Social Democracy, Totalitarianism, etc. Now on such a framework, Anarchism is an economic or an incentive system. Politically, it is a how not a what. And as an incentive system, it advocates a decentralized (and somewhat voluntary) group of organizations which perform the function of a government locally with little use of force. This is structurally really, really similar to feudalism. Now I can think of two objections which you might make: 1. A feudal lord is not quite the same as a Dispute Resolution Agency (DRO): This is true. As I understand, the structure of a DRO is similar to an insurance company and nothing like that of a feudal lord, who often ruled by inheritance and almost certainly with force. (A closer medieval analogy would be the Church ex-communicating people convicted of crimes.) But in one sense, the function or intent of a feudal lord (for the most part) can certainly be described as "resolving local disputes". And even though there were many battles and wars in the Medieval period, they didn't fight all the time! There were long peaceful times which were ruled by these feudal lords (though not as peaceful compared to modern standards). So perhaps I am stretching the concept of Anarchism here. It may not be Mr. Molyneux's version of Anarchism, but perhaps a version of Anarchism. 2. The feudal system wasn't created to protect freedom or individual rights: Again, this is also true. But remember how we defined our concepts here. Anarchism, as I understand the concept, is an incentive system. Mr. Molyneux version of his Moral-Political-Economic system may best be described as Libertarian Anarchism i.e. his moral-political views of Liberty dictate the necessity of Anarchy as an incentive system. In early Medieval Europe, most feudal systems were necessitated by a lack of available resources i.e. most people in a kingdom simply didn't have the resources to have large governments or monarchies like those of Rome before. And they knew they needed some form of organization performing the function of a government. So, a (somewhat secular) decentralized system of mini-kings or lords was what they came up with. And at least in their early years, most people living under feudalism had some sort of autonomy in their private lives. So it may called at best as a non-moral application of Anarchism. In later decades and centuries, the political ideas of monarchy (and Christianity) abolished the early feudal system to a structure more akin to absolute monarchies. But, according to me, early Medieval feudal system was an instance of Anarchism. If my identification is correct, then one can say some good (and possibly some bad) things about Anarchism. What do you think?

[This is an open work-in-progress theory regarding Capital and relevant definitions]: -- Preface -- In the same way the color wheel and circle of fifths help to convey relationships and serve as mnemonic diagrams, I seek to simplify and clarify capital theory for ease of teaching and incorporation into our daily lives. This is also an attempt to make measurable those aspects of capital other than physical/financial forms (many of them already are measured to some degree). If this sounds like something that interests you as well, I welcome your contributions, critiques, and clarifications. -- Definitions -- Capital: The source for, and result of, exchange/interaction (...too vague?) Capital: A vehicle for will Capital: A means to an end Capital Archetypes: Subcategories (the "hues") of capital that share certain properties (convenient as a label but not mutually exclusive to another archetype) Inter-Capital: Exchanges/interactions between different capital archetypes (a change in "hue" on the color wheel, or for example, cash for cookies) Intra-Capital: Exchanges/interactions within the same capital archetype (a change in "intensity" of a hue on the color wheel, or for example, cookies for milk) Currency: Valuations: The unit of measurement used for a specific capital archetype -- Capital Archetypes -- [][/Red] Natural Capital: Capital that sustains life. This can include land/ecosystems, food, water, animals, and even the body (time too?). The implication here is that self-ownership is not only a foundation of responsibility for one's actions, but also a generator of other capital (what we make with our time and energy for example). Possible currencies valuations include calories, joules (?), weight, numerical count (head of cattle for example), ppm/pH (water purity), and carbon/nitrogen/etc. (?). [][/Orange] Financial Capital: Capital that facilitates trade. This can include physical and/or digital forms of money, credit, insurances, securities, stocks/bonds, and any other form of fiduciary contract. The implication here is that this capital acts as a middleman capital to ease economic exchange between other capitals with physical limitations (or otherwise), and account for wealth in an abstract manner. Possible currencies valuations include price, probability percentages, shares, and... (maybe an economist can elaborate further?) [][/Yellow] Material Capital: Capital that fuels/supplies industry. This can include all matter of resources, tools, and infrastructure. The implication here is that this capital maintains the means of production. Possible currencies valuations include weight/load capacity, grade (quality), production rate, tensile strength, and efficiency (energy, material, or otherwise). [][/Green] Social Capital: Capital that denotes diplomatic capacity. This can include your social network, recommendations/reputation/trustworthiness/influence, and legitimacy. The implication here is that who you know and who knows you can become a valuable asset (strength of connections within a network). Possible currencies valuations include the number of connections, friends, and followers you have (both in your local and digital/distant neighborhood), your credit score, public opinion poll percentages, etc. [][/blue] Cultural Aesthetic Capital: Capital that projects perception. This can include art (manifested appeals to the senses), rituals, prestige, luxury, etc. The implication here is that people and things (ephemeral or enduring) have intrinsic value beyond the material, medium, or action. Possible currencies valuations include... I dunno... provenance? (moving on...) [][/indigo] Human Intellectual Gnostic Capital: Capital that documents and imparts information. This can include diplomas, reference materials, an individual's collection of experience (knowledge/wisdom etc.), personality, and language/discussion/debate. The implication here is that (applied) knowledge is power (whether esoteric or exoteric) and can inform our decisions throughout various capital transactions. Possible currencies valuations include literacy, age (?), bytes/RAM/processing power, and informational accuracy/intelligence (error probability). [][/Violet] Spiritual (φ) Capital: Capital that encourages self-actualization. This can include empathy, morale/self-esteem, honor, mastery, and internal resonance (as opposed to cognitive dissonance). The implication here is that our emotions are valuable in ways like sensing a connection to others as well as an internal guidance system (for future thoughts and behaviors). Possible currencies valuations include the emotional scale, etc. (another hard one...) -- Discussion/Revisions -- [i look forward to hearing your thoughts.] StylesGrant: Humanity in Capital vs. Rationality AustinJames: Subjective vs. Objective capital, & Social/Cultural Capital overlap GRosado: Redefine Capital, Inter- Intra- Confusion, Currency/Measurement Confusion, & Hayekian Triangle Inclusion Josh F: Human Capital distinctions possibly unnecessary, & possible Coercive Capital/Political Capital inclusion. I made a model to illustrate the idea.

https://medium.com/incerto/the-most-intolerant-wins-the-dictatorship-of-the-small-minority-3f1f83ce4e15 Found this paragraph to be particularly interesting:

Land ought to be rented out to owners of property residing upon them for naturally we are all co-owners of the earth. For the sake of Justice, an initial one-time 50% of an established equal land value to be paid into a General fund by current owners of landed property. I.e. if I had a house 40% paid off I would owe 20% & the other owner 30%(of the land's value only). Afterwards for the sake of being able to live free, land rent ought to be 20% of the land value to be paid after current property owner’s death by the fortunate that inherit the renters property. Renters that die without anyone to inherit their property shall be auctioned off to the public & added to the General Fund. Natural resources sold by land renters shall pay 50% of their profits into the General Fund. The General Fund shall be distributed monthly & equally to all citizens 21 years of age & over for social security. Unclaimed funds shall be added back into the General Fund after 31 days. A simple plan as such would end hunger, homelessness, petty crime & add security for the wealthy in society. Special circumstances easily handled by civil courts. Equal opportunity would be a reality & expensive social programs unnecessary. If you can, tell me why this would not work.

Throughout the Trump campaign and leading up the the election I have spoken with many people online and some in person about Trump's Nationalist platform and his ideas for economic protectionist oriented policy. I certainly do empathize with where most if not all of the people who supported Trump in the US and in Europe are coming from in terms of cultural deterioration and wanting jobs to come back to the US but there are some flaws with protectionism as economic policy. Allow me to explain: The problem with protectionism remains the same as it has always been. If we decide to impose high tariffs onto all of the imports from China or Korea or Mexico or wherever those foreigners will just stop sending their much less expensive products to the US or decide to impose tariffs on our exports thus canceling out the effect and intention of the policy. This would be fine I suppose if you are able to afford the premium that would be charged for "Made in America" products. The reason prices will go up is because Americans will not accept "slave wages" that are often associated with sweat shops and factories over seas. However, the problem is millions of people will not be able to afford it or just will not buy the products or services for the sake of keeping costs down if it is possible to find these things elsewhere for cheaper. You cannot have high wages and low costs at the same time. You have to pick one or the other. Personally, I would much rather have my cheap Chinese products because it is employing people there and in other countries thus allowing them to get out of poverty.The lifting off people out of poverty is a result of globalization and not Nationalism. Also if you want to stop the migrant crises in the future, one good first step would probably be to stop blowing shit up in those countries and attempting to nation build. After all if YOU had your home blown to bits you would be pretty pissed off at whomever had done it and would then need somewhere to live. The foreign policy of the United States has to be dramatically changed so that we stop having all of these crises and so that Globalization can finally stop being so vilified. The free movement of people and ideas is the reason we even have the Internet. If people will not accept curtailing of freedom in this regard then how can you reject it when it comes to borders? I get that you have to keep troublesome people who are not looking to improve their lives or contribute to society out of your countries, but you can do that without punishing the people who want genuinely want to contribute. The big issue is that a whole bunch of Statists are not interested in peace. The US always has to go in and invade some random country because of an evil dictatorship. Instead of allowing the country to settle its own disputes and perhaps intervene in a diplomatic way, we have to start 15 year wars that cost trillions of dollars and leave us with wounded veterans who will never be the same. I find it very difficult to see any reason or benefit to continuing on into the future with this type of foreign policy. Libertarian philosophy and economic models never work because people in this country worship at the altar of a proactive, aggressive military and Crony Statism is most other areas. I am not condemning the military or anything our service men and women do per se. I would just like for the Department of Defense to maybe actually focus on defense. Invading sovereign nations may satiate your bloodlust in the short term but it's the economic prosperity of future generations that suffers as they are the ones who have to deal with the consequences financial or otherwise. I think a lot of Nationalists have never been to those foreign countries to see the working conditions and how they have improved. Granted at first they were bad, but we do not live in a vacuum. Working conditions can always change and do. So when people describe sweat shops as "slave labor" I have to ask them "As compared to what?" Working in fields without, as of yet, the benefit of modern agricultural technology? Prostituting themselves in order to put food on the table? You have to consider what will happen in these other countries as a result of companies like Apple or Nike or whomever coming back to the US. Now all of those Vietnamese, Chinese, African, and South Americans of all walks of life have nothing and have to resort to perhaps in less dignifying means of survival. Again, I see where most of you are coming from with the Nationalism and the cultural aspect in both the US and in Europe, but it is still economic suicide. Unless the wages of every single person in the country go up and up significantly how are we going to pay for the "Made in America" premium price? Feedback as always is greatly appreciated.

This is the response from President Obama to an email I sent a few weeks back detailing my concerns on big government and our country beginning to lean more towards Socialism. I am aware of the general sentiment of Obama at this point in time in the U.S., and I may lose some friends for this, but you have to hand it to the man, he handles criticism of his administration tactfully and diplomatically. This is a valuable character trait and debate/discussion habit that I hope to emulate whenever anyone offers critiques of my work in the future. As we look forward to a Trump presidency, just remember that Obama is human as well and has his good qualities like anybody else. At this point, dehumanizing his administration will not do anything to change what happened. All we can do is look back, reflect, and attempt to do better in the future. If this makes me a crazy leftist Statist in some peoples eyes, so bet it. The ability to recognize valauble traits in others despite disagreements over philosophy is the foundation for building a more peaceful society in my humble opinion. The White House, Washington Thank you for writing. After recovering from the worst economic crisis in generations, our Nation has had the longest streak of private-sector job growth in our history. We are less reliant on foreign oil, and over 20 million people have gained health insurance since the coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act took effect. With an unemployment rate cut in half, deficits cut by almost three-quarters, and an auto industry that has roared back to life, America now has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. However, many feel anxious about the profound economic changes that started long before the Great Recession—from technology that can replace jobs on the assembly line and companies that can relocate anywhere on the planet to workers having less leverage for a raise and more wealth concentrated at the top. These changes are squeezing the middle class and making it harder for working Americans to start a career, a family, or a business and save for retirement. They also threaten the fundamental American promise that if you work hard, you can get ahead. My Administration has made progress in building an economy that provides security and opportunity for all, but there’s still more work to do. Real opportunity in the 21st-century global economy requires access to the education and training needed to land a good-paying job, which is why we must continue investing in early childhood education, working to ensure our students graduate from high school ready to succeed in college and careers, and making college and technical schools more affordable. We also need to expand benefits and protections for hardworking Americans and strengthen our healthcare system, Social Security, and Medicare so more of our people can have a basic measure of security throughout their career and when they retire. And when someone falls on hard times, we should support them as they retrain and retool for a new job. A thriving private sector is the lifeblood of our economy, and in this fast‑changing world, small businesses, startups, and workers need more of a voice—not less. And we need to use American innovations to solve our biggest problems. That’s why my Administration has called for all students to have access to high-quality computer science education, and why we have invested in clean energy technology and next-generation manufacturing hubs so the products of tomorrow can be designed and built right here in America. Thank you, again, for writing. For information on what my Administration has done to build an innovation economy that works for everyone, visit www.WhiteHouse.gov/The-Record/Economy. Sincerely, Barack Obama

When it comes to determining what is "fair," the discussion has nothing to do with objective, empirical standards and is instead arbitrary, subjective, and normative in nature. One thing Socialists and other statists can never define is what is fair. Their definition remains nebulous and largely open to interpretation. At what tax rate are the rich finally contributing enough to the pot? 60%? 80%? 90% of their income? Well the problem with attempting to Robin-hood the rich out of their money is then you don't have the money needed for long-term capital investment, which is the accumulation of wealth and other factors of production needed to make new products. The reason you have an IPhone/smartphone to tweet, blog, live-stream and whatever else from is because entrepreneurs took a big financial risk in starting a company to innovate new products. You don't get capital investment from the poor. This is simply a reality of life. If that offends you, I'm not sure what to say other than you shouldn't be trying to discuss philosophy. There is also this ridiculous idea that we are living in a vacuum and that if we write on a piece of paper that "the rich will now pay 80% of their income in taxes" that people will pay that tax and not adjust their behavior. This is a basic intelligence and empathy mental exercise when we talk about raising taxes. Just imagine if you knew the government was going to levy an 80% tax on your income. Would you be jumping for joy and eager to fill out that 1040? Or would you be looking for every conceivable way to reduce or avoid that tax burden? Also this idea that taxes are the "cost" we pay in order to live in a civilized society. I don't know about you, but I can't think of anything more immoral or uncivilized than taking money from hard working, successful people and redistributing it to those who made less than stellar financial decisions in their lives. This idea is nonsense. For example, I'm sure most remember high school and group projects. There was always that one person who would not contribute anything of value to the effort and yet could still single-handedly determine the grade that the group got as a whole. So all the people who cared and were studious had to carry the lazy bums on their shoulders every single time. Another example in regards to taxes is a simile. Its like sending a letter to a rich person saying: "I notice you like to leave your car outside of the garage, so my gang and I are going to come over tomorrow and steal it." What do you imagine that rich person is going to do? He/she is going to lock the car in the garage and buy every piece of home security technology possible, they're going to give it to a trusted friend for safekeeping until the parasitical leeches leave, or they're going to send it to a location nobody knows about. You simply aren't going to get the assets or the money which they could also just spend on other stuff in tax revenue. You're going to show up to their house the next day and because you told them you were coming the stuff won't be there. It baffles me how many people still believe that this strategy will work given the Laffer Curve and all the work done on public choice theory: http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PublicChoice.html http://www.laffercenter.com/the-laffer-ce…/the-laffer-curve/

Hi does anyone know about cloud mining? Does it make any sense? Some people say it's a scam, as you naturally aren't going to get as much BTC back as if you just buy them. But doesn't this assume the price will be stable? Also it seems like this would only apply to people playing the short-term price speculation game. I don't see how the same economics wouldn't apply to investment in any other field. My head is starting to hurt from trying to do the math and economics of it, feel like I am missing something...If I think BTC is a good investment, does buying hashpower from a company in Hong Kong make sense? Or should I just buy the coins? Thanks for your help.

Am I allowed to marry people in another country? Say yes for free trade and no for protectionism.

I've seen every video there is on youtube of Andreas. Seriously, I'm stalking him, I want to have his babies. But this one is especially great. He goes into some really interesting topics you don't usually see from him, like currency as a form of expression, how cryptocurrencies will win, how financial markets are rigged, and just a generally enjoyable and fascinating listen. Ch-ch-check it out, yo!

The big question that determines the economic effect on Britain of the Brexit is how big a bitch the EU will be towards it. If the EU decides to be calm, rational and to arrange the trade deal that will most benefit it's remaining members then Brexit won't cause major harm to Britain or the EU. If they attempt to punish Britain for it's desire to leave them both Europe and England will be significantly harmed. The greater the degree of malice and spite the greater the harm. So EU leaders, will they be calm and sane, basically reasonable but a little bitchy, basically bitchy but with some reason or sugar-in-your-ex's-tank spiteful?

I'm starting a thread on the economics of the migrant crisis because that at least is one area where it's possible to push back on fashionable but very wrong beliefs. We have to get the word out on this. The German government's policy on refugees is deeply un-humanitarian. The annual cost of their 2015 migrant intake alone could have supported around 20m refugees, had they supported them in the normal way via agencies such as the UNHCR. Instead they chose to support just 2.5% of that, around 500K refugees, together with roughly the same number of economic migrants, by resettling them in Europe. Even the 2.5% who were helped are likely to be amongst the least needy refugees, because they were able to pay thousands to the people smugglers. Meanwhile as at 22 March, the UNHCR's budget to support Syrian refugees in the Middle East was about 1/3 underfunded and the overall agency funding for Syrian refugees in the Middle East (because only about 25% of the Syrian refugee aid budget goes through the UNHCR) was at just 31% of budget. http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/download.php?id=10555. That's the real refugee crisis. Had the German government just funded the relief agencies in the normal way instead of resettling migrants, it could have single-handedly funded all the relief agencies' entire 2016 Syria budgets (total $4.5bn) more than 3 times over for the annual cost of their 2015 migrant intake. A recently published report showed that the cost of resettling refugees in Europe was crowding out billions from foreign aid budgets: Centre for Effective Altruism. Effects of the Refugee Crisis on ODA. . 2016-04-06. URL: https://drive.google.com/a/givingwhatwecan.org/file/d/0B551Ijx9v_RoSG1JS2NlY0J1LWlHTFR0RHMyTXNlMk9sVnlB/Accessed: 2016-04-06. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6gYo5ZeIs) Some details: At the end of 2014 there were an estimated 59.5m refugees and internally displaced persons worldwide http://www.unhcr.org.uk/about-us/key-facts-and-figures.html The UNHCR's annual cost per refugee is around $1K for Syrian refugees http://cis.org/High-Cost-of-Resettling-Middle-Eastern-Refugees#23and around $380 in Kenya http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e483a16.html. This compares with estimates for resettlement in Germany (from the Deutscher Städtetag and the Institut für Weltwirtschaft Kiel) of EUR13K ($14.5K) per year: Greive, Martin. Flüchtlingskrise kostet bis zu 55 Milliarden Euro im Jahr. Die Welt. 2016-04-06. URL:http://www.welt.de/wirtschaft/article149854636/Fluechtlingskrise-kostet-bis-zu-55-Milliarden-Euro-im-Jahr.html. Accessed: 2016-04-06. (Archived by WebCite® at http://www.webcitation.org/6gYpP7kSm) General information about Syrian refugees from the UNHCR: http://data.unhcr.org/syrianrefugees/regional.php

I worked for a highly competitive private business in the food service industry for 35 years in California. We did a great job keeping the customers happy. The competition was tough but so were we. However, our biggest customers like Safeway, Vons, Kroger, Albertsons, Walgreens, Smart n Final, Whole Foods, etc. could have cared less about the service we provided because they knew they would be the priority over all others due to the shear volume of their account and they were right. The problem was that when ever a new company came to town, they would threaten to switch for price alone. We got to where the price was so low we could barely compete against these multinational corporations. I'm not complaining about this in regards to why capitalism works so well, but more how I always felt like I could loose my job at any moment. After time that really does take it's toll. Yes, that constant fear does motivate you to do what ever it takes to survive thus it keeps prices low and service high, always tweaking your business model and service tactics and that is good, to a point. What I found was It started affecting everything in my life. I was always working and spending less time at home with my kids. It made me less empathetic to everyone around me so I not only had the battle at work but it became a battle to be at home. My wife and kids were endlessly supportive but I became more and more frustrated, depressed and disengaged at home. What I was experiencing is not only common throughout the US, it has become pathological. Some people do better than others in that environment (young single males) but look at the corporate/political/Geopolitical condition of the world today, it's ruthless and highly unstable. It made me start to think that there just has to be a better way. It doesn't look like anything will change now since multinational corporations and international banks are running the world corrupting the body politic and most everything else in their path. However, this problem certainly explains why so many people are trending towards socialism / communism as a way to relax the constant fear thus creating more and more susceptibility to the "languasites' Stefan described in podcast FDR3263. I am aware that as long as the current economic structure (fiat money, Keynesian economics and "languasites') are dominant, there is little to no chance of this changing any time soon so my timing on this subject is no doubt out of sync, but I think it is relevant to a bigger picture. Ruthless business models are a big cause of destructive family environments in so many ways it's too much to go into here. People equate this false capitalism as actual capitalism, the cause of their constant anxiety, thus we see the popularity of Bernie Sanders types, along with more and more talk of resurrecting so many historically destructive political systems. The near total loss of freedom seems to be more acceptable than the current work environment and social instability. Capitalism did give rise to this phenomenon even in it's infancy and in it's purest form. I think the purest capitalistic system is susceptible to this regardless of how 'pure' it is. Money corrupts even the most ethical of humans so governmental systems will always have to exist until either the average IQ gets over 110 or the population decreases below levels that existed before Kings, Queens and religion. I have often thought that the only viable government would have be an AI programed in such a way that it's primary objective is for humans to eventually no longer need it, thus no longer needing government to force cooperation. This is based on the idea that it's impossible to bribe a machine but then there is always the programmer. There could be something like a medical cure for low IQ across ethnic lines (as Stefan described in a recent podcast) or a medical cure to the 'virus' of sociopathic and psychopathic disorders though the odds of something like that happening is at best unlikely any time soon. The peaceful parenting model is a necessary imperative but I fear a mufti-generational approach will not be enough to fix anything before we destroy ourselves or render the world uninhabitable. The current social and political situation is dire -- I am not hopeful. (Comments Welcome) Dusty Wiggins 'What this world needs are massive and spontaneous outbreaks of positive creativity.'

So for a bit of time I have been following probably something that will come as a bit of a surprise to this community, maybe because this particular person calls himself a guru and a mystic. Maybe it's my own projection, but I'm still nonetheless going to throw this out here since my passion has been sparked. So here is the video that relates to the title of this thread: https://youtu.be/UGroxC5xJaA The argument is that "for the first time we as people have the necessary capability, resource and technology to address every human problem on the planet." How does that stand against the welfare state, and because it is talked about in the idea that businesses should take this up as their vision, would that at least qualify this argument for being in the realm of win-win negotiations? How does it stand against the idea of the limited resources of the planet? The argument to me also has a moral component, altruistic in nature, that ultimately if the capability is there to solve these human problem by the able, it should also mean that the able need to be a part of this movement, to a disproportionate degree than those that do not have the capability. Maybe I'm getting it wrong. The scope of the argument, is for now, just limited to our planet. I'd like to see how this stands to the rigors of this forum, of reason and evidence. So if you prefer, do throw some fire thisaway.

Hi everyone, Thanks for your feedback on my last video, this is my new one on the coming economic collapse. The main purpose of this video was to share some of the resources I used to learn and prepare for whats coming. Check it out an let me know if you have any constructive feedback. Please subscribe too! Thanks Joe

Hey there! I was just inspired to summarize the Austrian Business Cycle Theory as succinctly as possible for those in the community who may not be familiar, and who just want the essence: that which is really important about how the theory functions in empirical reality (but I repeat myself). Central Banks are a modern phenomena which reign control over the particular amount of money in the economy. At any given point in time, there is an amount of money which correlates to the distribution of goods in society, and this is reflected by prices. In a free market, the amount of money fluctuates as more or less of it enters the market over time according to the demand for money. Central Banks turn the typical intuition of how the money supply would fluctuate over time on its head. With a central bank, money can be printed on demand of political swindlers, and the money supply can be increased exponentially if so chosen by these pernicious scum. When money is printed by a politician, it is then handed out to a private actor. This is where the essence begins. The private actor who first is able to spend the newly created money accrues a special benefit. Since his money was not earned from production for consumers, but was gained by political fiat, it is essentially hidden from the economy. When it enters, it has the effect of being as fresh and powerful as any other money which was the result of valuable, market demanded production. It disguises itself to be just the same, but it is not, since no productive act was behind its creation. When it is first spent, it will accrue productive resources from others who are in vain of its disguise. If there is a lot of newly printed money to be spent, it will quickly chase and gather new resources until it is accounted for by everyone else. Only after much time will it be completely factored into the market prices, to reflect the increase in the money supply which had not been demanded, and which could not have been anticipated by other market actors. Political bandits have become masters of counterfeit, and so they know how to maximize their gains. They bring new money to bear into the market gradually over time, and by doing so they create economic bubbles. This is the last bit of the essence, so stay along with me for this. Since other economic actors who are not politically connected lose out by inflation as more and more money is printed over time, they are given incentive, if not coerced to use their money to chase whichever industry is getting the benefit of new, gradual monopolization of resources by the use of disguised money. Looking to limit their losses and gamble on gains, investors who are not politically connected invest, and they invest, and they invest into the disguised money monopoly industry. At some point there must be a relative slowing of the increase in money supply. It cannot go on forever, lest catastrophic inflation shows its face. This is when the disguised money disrobes itself to show its bloated body. What was thought to be economic production is now seen as a political shindig, and what prices were thought to be a reflection of real consumer demands are now seen as completely fraudulent. A picture is painted across the skyline, signaling to everyone the massive and horrifying scale of what was lost. Capital thought to be suckling at the teat of future wealth is now seen shattered and dispersed across the landscape in irrecoverable ways. Savings for years and years has dispersed into thin air it seems, and living standards which were anticipate to be much glorious are now faint and gloomy. The bust is the wake of what is lost. It is the market opening its eyes to what had been disguised to it, and its attempt to pick up the pieces and begin all over again, with full knowledge that some of what was lost will never be restored. As you can see, counterfeit is not just a criminal affair. It is the literal enslaving of millions of people, clueless to the fact that their lives have been wasted profiteering for politicians. Millions of people carrying on their backs a few men, to see their lives wasted and their accumulations ruined when the promises they have been told are revealed years later. That was fun, but I hope it was also clear. Let me know if there is anything I can add to complete the picture of what a boom/bust cycle really is. Or if I got it all wrong, please let me know that too!

Hey guys, I have a blog on Wordpress called vforvoluntary which matches my profile name. It covers a wide variety of issues related to politics, economics, philosophy, etc. Check it out if you want and share it with your friends. I would particularly recommend reading The State: The Opiate of the Masses and The Non-Aggression Principle: A Principle So Crazy You Probably Live By It as they capsulize anarcho-capitalist views in general. I am also working on a blog post that will explain how an anarcho-capitalist society could work. Check it out using the link below: https://vforvoluntary.wordpress.com/

Hi dear FDM'ers. I've started posting on this forum fairly recently although I've been following FDR for about 2 years now. In a 'welcome' thread I've mentioned that I'm originally from Poland (or Pooland as I call it) and that 5 years ago I decided to migrate to less hellish place - the UK. I'm currently living in South East London, which is quite dodgy but not very expensive compared to other parts of London. I've been renting properties so far but really want to buy my own place as I've recently enterred my 30's. I'm a software developer in a big financial corporation, hence my wage is quite high and I have good career prospects here if I stay in this industry sector. Despite this, my options of getting on the property ladder are quite grim as the prices of property are simply astronomical. For those not living in the UK, to give you an idea, newly built one-bedroom (shoebox sized) flats in my area start at about £320k to £350k. Even with my high wage, I can't get a mortgage as I'm not making enough money. Old builds are cheaper but usually in very rough areas (like Dagenham) and are usually either very neglected, ex-council (social housing) or both. My place of work is right smack in central London, hence If I go further out the property prices reduce but only slightly and even If I did get a mortgage for one of those I would be facing at the very least, 20 years of paying it off while spending 3 hours a day commuting to and from work. This is not a life I want to lead. If I go out into smaller towns in the UK, there is very little demand for my skills if any. My company recently established a big presence in Tennesse in the US and I was thinking of persuing being relocated there for some time, just to see what the opportunities are in the US. One of my team members is based there and he likes it, but also mentioned that the best place to be for a person with our skillset would be Texas, as according to him, it has the best ratio of personal liberties to economic opportunities. Problem with both of those states is that the people there, tend to be more on the religious side. I'm not religious and don't really get along with religious people, hence I've mentioned this to be a problem. I've also contemplated moving back to Pooland, mainly the Kraków region, which has an influx of foreign tech companies setting up their branches and hiring IT professionals. The cost of living in Pooland are a lot, and I mean a lot, lower than in the UK, and with my current savings, I already have pretty much half a property there (or at least well more than needed for a deposit on a mortgage). Pooland has its problems though - it's filled with either neurotic catholics or raving socialists and have terrible bureaucracy - even some left over from the Stalinist era. I know this post is long, so I'll try to end it quickly. Basically, I'm at crossroads so to speak. If I stay in London, I have a perspective of renting for the rest of my life or purchasing a tiny, low quality housing and trying to pay it off for the next 2 decades, all the while dealing with various problems which the UK has, like 3rd word immigrants, crazy socialists and feminazis, race riots and so on. If I leave, I would have to probably face some combination of similar problems, maybe to lesser extent but I'd have to 'start my life from scratch' in terms of social circles for example. To make this more difficult, I'm not very outgoing and change is a very big thing to me. Is there any advice you can bestow on me in this field?

Good morning everyone, Nancy Folbre is visiting my school's Econ department today, and I was wondering if anyone had any good questions that I could bring up during her presentation as I'm unfamiliar with her work. If anyone else happens to be somehwat familiar and has a good and relevant challenge to present, please let me know and I'll report back what happens! Link is below. Best, fitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Folbre

Hi everyone. I didn't want to leave my previous post floating in the virtual landscape. A quick recap; The post was my search for romance (anyway I feel a tad embarrassed so...) I have indeed considered the messages and arguments of RTR but still..umm...let's move on. Anyway! I am thinking of starting a French tuition business. I'll be honest (it's a virtue of course ) and say that I am nowhere near getting out into the high streets, shopping centres and green fields of La Grande Bretagne! But it's my aim at the moment. I will get to it women, men and les chats Anyone have any business tips and advice? Thanks.

From the Peak Prosperity Podcast: Published on Sep 28, 2015 Recently, author and "de-growth activist" Charles Eisenstein stopped by the Martenson homestead while traveling on business. Taking advantage of the opportunity, Chris sat him down to record an impromptu discussion on the nature of wealth. As should come as little surprise to Peak Prosperity readers, financial wealth ("money") is just one component -- and given society's current over-fixation with it, its pursuit oftentimes limits our ability to be truly wealthy.

Greetings folks. I am contemplating on buying gold. Not ETFs but actual physical gold bars. A quick google search yields many websites, and within each website there are many options available. It seems there are many sources in which they are produced from, Credit Sussie, Panda Coins... And there are many retailers that distributes these. Navigating them are kind of intimidating. What are your experiences in gold purchase and ownership? Is there like an "official" grade gold, or an "Official" channel? In my mind, this is what I assume the process is like: mining -> minting -> distribution/retail/packaging/marketing and that each process could be done by a same business entity, or different ones. Of course this extends to silver and other precious metal as well.