Already done so through reference to the military sector. See, for example, Hartley's analysis into spin-offs from Euro-fighter
One point I'd like to make is even if we ignore the issue of "money" in the United States we still wouldn't come close to having a "free market" in the United States. We live under crony capitalism in the United States today and that is anything but a free market. For example a "free market" requires adherence to the Law of Supply and Demand for commodities and labor. Laws that limit the import or impose prohibitions related to commodities or labor both violate the free market. In effect the drug prohibition laws and the restrictive immigration laws of the United States both violate the principles of the "free market" based upon the Law of Supply and Demand. It also requires that legislation not provide advantages for one "group" as opposed to another "group" which we have in out tax laws today. A sole proprietor today can pay double the taxes that a corporation would pay on the identical income and that is "corporate" favoritism under crony capitalism.
Again, I'm going to limit my comments, because I don't know enough about this specific topics. That said, there are three more general points I'd make. First, if there is a problem, then clearly from your post, there are more than enough people looking into it. Clearly, if there is a problem, it will be dealt with. Second, toxicity is more nebulous than people seem to realize. Nearly everything in life is toxic at extreme levels. Too much sun will kill you. Sun poisoning. Too much water will kill you. Too much salt, as in table salt, is toxic. Everything, as in everything, is toxic if you have too much. Even low levels of nuclear radiation is beneficial, but of course too much is toxic, and will kill you. It sounds as if, the use of Roundup has drastically increased in recent years, and possibly this has placed it in the toxic levels area. We should limit it back down, and that should solve the problem. Third, and last, there is a notable problem in the patent area. This isn't limited to Monsanto. It has to do with patents. The patent system is broken, and unsustainable. Monsanto is simply using the same rights that *YOU* would if you were in their position. The problem is, intellectual property is simply not supportable anymore. I understand the logic behind it, but in reality it can't be sustained. We need to reform the patent system, either by eliminating it, or limiting it massively. Possibly down to 5 years.
Yeah it does elude me.... generally because it's not logical at all. If you have 100 monkey dollars floating around on your island... and there's a guy who has ten monkey dollars, and you want to borrow those 10 monkey dollars, you issue him a note "IOU 10 MDs" You didn't print any money. The total number of Monkey dollars on the island is still 100. You borrowed 10, and gave an IOU. You didn't print money. You printed an IOU. An IOU is not money. It is exactly what it is... an IOU. If your basic arugment is that the Federal govenment is borrowing more, and it's resulting in debt.......... well...... yeah. *That* part of your argument makes sense. But they are not printing money, by printing IOUs, anymore than if I borrowed $100 from you, and gave you a signed document that IOU $100, means I just printed money. Printing money, and borrowing money, are two completely and totally different things. Not the same in any way. What? You lost me again. Inflation is not equal to the trade of goods and service, by any measure. The trade of goods and services was relatively low during the 70s, while inflation was high, hence the term "stagflation" during the 70s. Equally in the 90s, trade of goods and services was relatively high, while inflation was low. And money making money equals hyper inflation? What do you mean by money making money? Surely you don't mean investment. No, inflation is normal in all currency systems. The dollar would naturally decline in value over time. Not as fast as it has under a fiat currency... but it would still devalue to some extent naturally. Purchasing power would still decline, even if we were still walking around with silver coins. Again, we spend more money on education than nearly any 1st world country, and yet our students come out stupid. So saying the issue is "proper funding" is just not true. Further, when you cite a country as having a better education system, where 1 in 3 students is paying for private schooling, that alone should tell you something. Maybe your "it shouldn't be based on students paying" isn't all that effective. And lastly, not all education is equal. One of the things I was shocked about, when reading about UKs education system, is that tax payers are shelling out $50,000 to $100,000 to educate students in degrees that provide little benefit to society. Like Art History, or Music Therapy. Why would anyone spend tens of thousands of dollars, to get an education that resulted in them getting a job equal to a fast food joint, that any uneducated immigrant could do? Well of course no one would do this. But these students, and their parents, are *NOT* paying for this education. The tax payers are. And then you wonder why the UK is barely struggling to survive? It's not that surprising to me their economy is crap. Now, I'm not against people that want to go into social services, and earn $25,000 a year. But they shouldn't be wasting $80,000 on a degree, to earn $25,000 a year. Yes, educated people generally do better than non-educated. I get that. But they have to be educated in something that has value. When you offer them free-education, they tend to make less wise, and less fiscally intelligent choices. Their recommendation is crap. We've been moving away from local control, and local funding, for AGES. In the early days of this country, schools were run locally, funded locally, and were monitored locally. In the past 50 years, we have moved progressively more towards state and federal control, state and federal funding, and state and federal monitoring. Schools have gone to the trash the more we've moved in that direction. Yet people constantly claim that we simply need more of the exact thing that got us into this mess, to fix the mess it created. Again, adding more and more resources, has resulted in worse and worse schools. Consistently. Claiming that tossing even more money at a system that compared to the rest of world is awash in cash, is not going to fix anything. So you have an island with 10 people. I have an Island with 10 people. 2 people on your island get cancer, and simply die. 5 people on my island get cancer, 5 are treated and live. Which system has better health care? Everyone who got sick on your island, just died. Your health care system couldn't help any of them. My health care system saved their lives. But..... we had a higher rate of cancer. Rate of cancer, has more to do with culture, genetics, environment, whatever. Survival rate is a reflection of the health care system. Incident rate is irrelevant. Doctors can't stop a person from smoking if they want to. Doctors can't stop a person from shooting up drugs. Doctors only heal a person when they get an illness. Our health care system provides the best quality care in the world. Doesn't mean jack to 'incident rates' which doctors have zero control over. I didn't use all cap, like you did. If you can't communicate like an intelligent individual, then you shouldn't be on this forum. lol Further, *I* am the one who said government does not have to borrow money. And yes, I understand that congress can print more money.... but just printing money would cause hyper inflation, and ruin the entire country. That's a bad plan. Doesn't mean they have to borrow. First off, the lack of value represented around us, doesn't matter. You can spend money, and end up with nothing of value. If I pay someone $100 to smash my car with hammer, I will end up with spending the $100, and ending up with a car of a lot less value. If I borrow the $100, I will end up with $100 worth of debt, and a car of a lot less value. The $16 Trillion in debt is represent by government spending money on many different things. All those free health clinics around the country, social security recipients, Medicaid, and of course your alternative energy programs, your infrastructure you wanted, and everything else. The $16 Trillion was spent, consumed, and gone. That's what government does. This is why people on the right, are against government providing all these social services you think are so great. Government will borrow tons of money, consume it, and we'll end up left with the bill. Just like the 2009 stimulus package. Yes I agree. Stop spending the money. Stop demanding government programs that end up with that result. Really? I kind of like food. I kind of like my car. In fact, I rather enjoy my car. Both are providing me with wealth. Now if there is a problem with chemicals, then that will be dealt with. But you can't logically deny that Monsanto isn't providing a benefit to society, when we all have great food because of them. No, you dont' know what you are talking about. The BBC did a full story on this, and it wasn't limited to the FoxConn factory. It is wide spread throughout Chinese society. It's happening everywhere, and the reason is because of the Chinese government. The government as you know, provides extensive benefits to the people, from housing, to food rations, to health care, and even public transportation. But of course, all of this costs the governments lots of money. As people move from other areas to the cities, this causes massive cost to the government, which doesn't have the money for their socialized system. So in order to prevent these migrations, they have residency IDs. Immigrant workers, are not allowed resident IDs, which prevents them from getting all these social services, and housing, and food, and so on. At the same time, city residence people, look down on immigrant workers, as people who are sapping social services they do get. Immigrant workers want full time work. They really want to have jobs. But then they get to the city, and are effectively trapped. They can't get social services, they are treated like outsiders, they are looked down on, and they end up living at the factory, just to avoid the pain of being publicly shunned. The left-wing idiots.... complete and total mindless parrots, run around hearing one side of a story, and without knowing ANYTHING, just make up crap. They just completely fabricated that it was all Foxconn and Apple's fault. And then YOU read that story, and think that's the truth. Wrong. Socialism, government control over people in China, is what has led people to commit suicide. Those workers are ecstatic for a job that pays good money in their country. It's the social system under government, that leads them to hopelessness and suicide. Yeah, of course they were all better off starving to death. That's why so many people are fleeing the US to get to Venezuela under the socialized food shortages. The Berlin wall was of course, there to prevent miserable free-market people, from getting into the Socialist Utopia, right? You just seem to ramble on about things completely irrelevant to the conversation. Nothing of what you said, do I deny. But then you complain about our government being in debt. You don't see a connection here? Really? If our government had the money..... They then could afford to spend some on this. But if they don't, and you demand they spend stuff.... the result is debt. The only other option is printing money, and as I have said many times, that will destroy the entire country. Bad plan. They are not. Debt service is only $250 Billion for 2012. Tax revenue for 2012 was $2.6 Trillion. Roughly $2.3 Trillion dollars could be used for whatever you wish, without borrowing a penny, or minting a penny. No, all solar panels naturally degrade. And the guarantee, does not cover that. Yes, it will function.... at a gradually degrading level, for 30 years or more. The power production of a solar panel, naturally declines over time. That doesn't happen. Not everyone can be a teacher. Not everyone wants to teach. Otherwise, everyone on the planet would fix their own cars. But that hasn't happened, because a person who is a mechanic, who was taught by other mechanics, doesn't teach everyone how to be a mechanic. Nice theory. How many have done that? Zero? Even those who buy solar panels, always tie-in with the power grid. Why? Because the sun isn't out at night. People like having air conditioning, that doesn't shut off when the sun goes down. People like having power all night long. All of that stuff you just said, does not matter, if it doesn't meet what customers want. By all means. Go ahead. Try and sell your system. See how many people want it. You are being a jerk again. Just shut up if you can't talk like a decent human being. No one ever cares about what a jerk says. A jerk that has a good argument, is still just a jerk. I'm not going to talk to a jerk for very long. There are too many intelligent, and decent human beings, to waste my time talking with a jerk. Grow up. Didn't you have any parents that taught you how to be a worth while human being? If you find that people tend to ignore you in life, this is likely the reason why. Smart jerks, are still just jerks. Are you saying NASA isn't part of the Federal government because it's not in the constitution? Nothing else you said, contradicted, or was even a response to what I said.
Good grief. Well at least I get where this nut concept is coming from. Yes, when currency was originally created, it was supposed to be coin. Which is basically a barter system. A commodity currency. But of course dragging around 20 lbs of silver coins is heavy and cumbersome. The next alternative is to deposit the silver at the bank, and carry bank notes. Of course the government decided to take over that, and we had Federal Legal Tender, which was in fact a promissory note, that was redeemable in gold (hence the 'gold standard'). Thus a person dug gold out of the ground. They turned in the gold to a bank, in exchange for legal tender. The bank gave the gold to the Federal government, which would print out legal tender for the gold given, and exchange. Depending on how you look at it, it is a form of debt. But in reality, it's an exchange. You give me gold, I give you a note. You give me a note, I give you gold. Regardless, this is not a bad debt, assuming the government holds onto the gold. That's how the gold standard is suppose to work. The government should have an equal amount of gold, to all the legal tender notes issued. Now where this argument breaks down is...... we don't have gold standard. You are no longer legally entitled to any gold from the US government, just for having a US Federal note. The Federal Government doesn't owe you anything for that dollar, and won't give you anything for it. So the government could print out trillions of dollar bills, and still owe no one anywhere anything.
And you're talking with nonsense. Its a very simple reality: the free market is neither achievable or desirable. So why are you wanking on otherwise?
It is my understanding that a free market is a place where goods are exchanged without coercion. This is as achievable as walking through the Sun. Some here seem to believe that control of the common medium of exchange is all that precludes the operation of a free market. This leads me to the observation that free market believers adhere to an extremely narrow definition of coercion, one that I can in no way agree with or accept. If my observations are somehow incorrect or mistaken I would appreciate some enlightenment on the subject of coercion from a free market adherent.
The law says differently. There are two problems related to this of course but both are resolvable. Under the law a person should be able to redeem a Federal Reserve note on demand in "lawful money" (i.e. American Eagle coins) at the US Treasury or any Federal Reserve bank. It says so in no uncertain terms in Title 12. The law is not being enforced by the US government. Next is the fact that if enforced the US government has over $16 trillion of debt represented by Federal Reserve notes that it would be obligated to redeem if the holders of Federal Reserve notes showed up to demand gold coins but that would currently require about 300 billion ounces of gold which is many, many times the total gold ever mined. So how can the US government actually redeem the Federal Reserve notes that represent the government debt which is all the government is responsible for? Easy, revalue the US Dollar under the Constitutional authority granted in Article I Section 8 Clause 4 which grants the authority to: In short replace the Gold Bullion Coin Act of 1985 with a new Gold Bullion Coin Act that changes the gold standard. I've calculated that the new standard, based upon the existing US gold reserves, would need to be based upon a $5,000 one-ounce gold coin. Instead of a $50 one-ounce gold coin it would be replaced with a $5,000 one-ounce gold coin. Then enforce Title 12's requirements that the Federal Reserve redeem Federal Reserve notes on demand in "lawful money" which is species gold and silver (and platinum) coins. There is one minor hick-up because Title 31 states that the US Treasury will not redeem Federal Reserve notes in gold (it can in silver and platinum coins) but it doesn't exempt the Federal Reserve from redeeming Federal Reserve notes in gold coins and makes accommodations for the Federal Reserve to obtain gold coins from the Treasury. Complying with the US Constitution, the Juilliard v Greenman decision, and federal law is not all that hard as all it really requires is the "re-valuation of the Dollar" and enforcement of current laws and, bingo, we're fully back on the "gold" standard once again.
The philosophical perfect "free market" where the voluntary exchange of commodities for commodities and labor for commodities exists without any coercion, favoritism, or discrimination is idealistic and, like any ideal, is pragmatically impossible but that doesn't imply it's undesirable. The key is, of course, elimination of coercion, favoritism, and discrimination from the "market" in striving for a "free market" and that is certainly desirable. The "market" has always and will always exist regardless of whether it's a "legal market" or a "black market" so the fundamentals of removing coercion, favoritism, and discrimination will always be relevant and that is desirable. The problem I see with "free market" advocates is that they often ignore the coercion, favoritism, and discrimination in their propositions. We can't, for example, have "corporate favoritism" in a free market. We cannot have tax policies that don't impose the same tax burden relative to income in a free market. We cannot have discrimination in employment and compensation in a free market. We cannot have hereditary financial stratification in a free market. All of those exist in the United States and without addressing all of them we can't even approach having a free market because we are institutionalized against a "free market" economy.
Coercion is a natural part of capitalism, with economic rent created through underpayment. You'd have to strive for the end of capitalism. The Marxist view of discrimination is based on 'divide & conquer'. It cannot be eliminated as its part of the profit motive.
Nothing is "natural" when it comes to an economy. There is cause and effect so address the problem of "coercion" in capitalism and resolve it. As I noted a "free market" is a philosophical ideal and no ideal can be achieved but that doesn't imply it shouldn't be a goal and the closer we come to approaching that goal is something that is desirable.
Seems like a strange comment when evolutionary economics has become so vibrant. As I said, discrimination can be understood as part of the profit motive. Try and resolve it!
Really? Last week I went to Wendy's and bought a frosty. Didn't have to. No one forced me. No one forced them to sell the frosty. This week, I didn't go to Wendy's. No one complained. No one could make me. So where was this coercion? My brother in law, traded a car, for a motorcycle and a truck. He didn't use any medium of exchange at all. I know people who trade stuff all the time. Where is the coercion there? I mean, obviously, if you wish to make your own paper currency, that's not going to work well. But bitcoin project suggests that it isn't impossible to have an alternate medium of exchange.
LOL. In short all that's being said is that a problem exists and we haven't found the perfect solution to it yet. There is nothing inherently wrong with "profit" because under the ideal of a "free market" there really isn't such a thing. Everyone "profits" from all transactions regardless of whether it's the customer "profiting" from the commodity or services they trade for or whether its the worker "profiting" from the exchange of their labor for commodities or the enterprise exchanging commodities to the worker for their labor. Of note a "free market" cannot exist with fiat currency because fiat currency is not a commodity. The first obstacle for a free market is the elimination of fiat currency because it's not a commodity. Labor exchanged for a piece of paper is not labor being exchanged for a commodity which is a fundamental of a free market. As I've also noted there are huge barriers to achieving anything close to a free market. It would require the elimination of racial and gender bias in employment and compensation that denies equality of economic opportunity for example. This is NOT something the "government" can do because the discrimination is a result of individual prejudice. We have a serious problem of hereditary economic stratification where the "wealthy" have a huge economic advantage over someone being raised in poverty. How do we address that problem so there is a level playing field for all individuals? I can note the problems but to assume I have the answers to resolving all of those problems is absurd. If the answers were "easy" then the problems would have been resolved but the answers aren't easy. That does not imply we shouldn't identify the problems and then work to resolve them.
Yes, I understand the law says differently. The fact is, the government does not redeem Federal Notes for gold or silver. So as it is, not as it is written, printing Federal Notes, is not debt. The moment you try to enforce a gold standard, then yes, printing money would be debt. This is exactly why the government will not place us back on the gold standard. And honestly, I don't know that it would work. The problem we had in the 1930s, was that France was redeeming all their international notes for gold. Our stock pile of gold, that backed all our money, was dropping fast. If I thought it would work, I'd be in favor of it..... but I just don't see much evidence that it would.
Under the law the only exemption on redeeming currency by the Treasury only relates to redemption in gold. I'll only cite that provision but would recommend reading the entire law. http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/31/5119 Actually the problem was in the late 1960's into 1970 when France was redeeming "dollars" in "gold" under the Bretton Woods agreement at a fixed rate of $35/oz of gold. Nixon, by executive order, nullified the Bretton Woods agreement. Many incorrectly believe that this removed the US from the "gold" standard but that is not what actually happened. At the time a US citizen was still under the Emergency Banking Act passed under FDR and couldn't own gold anyway so it was unaddressed by Nixon. The Emergency Banking Act was repealed under Ford in 1974 (as I recall) and placed the US back on the gold standard. Of note there is a US Supreme Court decision that established that the US did not have to, and could legally prevent, US species coinage from leaving the country. US coinage is for use in the US economy and doesn't have to be used related to "international debt" created by commerce. We can require a country to exchange commodities for commodities in international trade and a "trade deficit" (which is how other countries come to "own" dollars) can be addressed with fiat notes that only promise redemption in commodities and not the "money" of the United States. In short new "American Eagle" coins could be created but the export of them by any means (private or government) from the United States can be prohibited under the law and that is Constitutional. They can be used exclusively for commerce in the United States because they are the "money" of the United States. I would return to the fundamental problem that the United States is supposed to be based upon the "Rule of Law" but when the US government doesn't enforce the law its obviously problematic. The US government cannot, under the US Constitution, remove the United States from the "gold standard" and species coinage but it can refuse to enforce the laws related to the gold standard which is what it's doing. Basically our current "monetary system" exists in violation of the US Constitution, US statutory law, and contract law related to promissory notes. Even if we ignore the US Constitution and statutory law how any economic system can survive when contract law is not universally enforced is obviously problematic. The issuance of a promissory note, which is what a Federal Reserve note is, with no intent to fulfill the "promise of the note" is criminal fraud and an economy cannot be based upon fraud.
That isn't true is it now! What's being said is "discrimination provides a means to increase profit". We're therefore making a distinction from the Chicago school's idea of discrimination where we simply assume a 'taste for discrimination' such that firms give up efficiency to feed their bigotry. This was always a terribly 'optimistic' view as it suggests that the market itself will drive out discriminatory behaviour. The problem for you is that the market itself, given capitalist rent seeking behaviour, will engineer coercive discrimination. Comments like "striving for a free market" is therefore really just an exercise into utopianism as the nature of capitalism is deliberately ignored.
Once again this is BS because no one has stated that the "market" will drive out discriminatory behavior. Quit making up BS as if it's a legitimate argument. I've stated that "we" must drive out discriminatory behavior for a free market and not that it would automatically happen because of the "market" itself.
Actually the Chicago school says that. The problem is that you're rambling on about discrimination without first actually having an understanding of how it develops in capitalism. Technically you've said nothing. "We" cannot do anything if the profit motive is behind the phenomenon.
There is nothing wrong with "profit" so long as both sides of any transaction each "profit" equally from the transaction. Please note that "profit" is not a dollar and cents equation though just like "wages" (dollars) are not the only reason to work for an enterprise. Not everything can be put into "dollar and cents" as that is a myopic understanding of trade.
First, this doesn't make sense. There is no 'profit equally' (and the idea is inconsistent with the concept of mutually beneficial exchange). Second, you haven't actually responded to the point. If discrimination increases profit then there is no market solution to the problem (nor means to regulate, as shown by the inability of equal pay legislation to eliminate the problem)
People really need to take a moment and "get out of the box" in their thinking. No one has said that the "market' or "government" is the solutions to the problems preventing a "free market" economy. Leaving out the "people" is the biggest mistake of all and that is where much of the problems originates because we need a paradigm shift in the people that comprise the economic society. To address the problem we need to figure out how do we obtain that paradigm shift in society? I live in the United States where we've built a massive industrialized nation but when I look at that it was based upon the economic oppression of minorities and women by WASP males since the founding of the nation. Yes, we came a long ways but success was based upon oppression. I would argue that we would have come much further without the oppression. If the 18% of African-Americans seeking employment were employed today how much better would our economy be? These are qualified people looking for work but racial prejudice blocks them from employment and the US economy suffers from that. So how do we obtain a paradigm shift to remove racial prejudice in the United States which would result in a better economy for All Americans to share in? While the market has some current problems the problem ultimately isn't the market. While the government has some current problems the problem ultimately isn't the government. It's the People that are creating most of the problems so how do we address the People to eliminate the problems they're creating in the economy?
You're not saying anything here. I've put it simply: Discrimination increases profit and therefore it is an innate part of capitalism.
Success was built on oppression? And why do you assume that the people unemployed are qualified? What if they are not, and that's why they are not employed?
