Prices of everything going up, uP, UP

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quote:
Somalia obviously bears no resemblance to this.

Of course it does. The people with the guns are in charge. The guy in charge of the people with guns makes the rules. This is a government as they control life in every way a "proper" (whatever that is) government does. No courts or legislature needed.

The more powerful a government becomes, the more arbitrary it will become because it depends less and less on the will of the people. A military dictatorship, such as those in Somalia, are totally arbitrary and at the complete will of those at the top.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Somalia obviously bears no resemblance to this.

Of course it does. The people with the guns are in charge. The guy in charge of the people with guns makes the rules. This is a government as they control life in every way a "proper" (whatever that is) government does. No courts or legislature needed.

The more powerful a government becomes, the more arbitrary it will become because it depends less and less on the will of the people. A military dictatorship, such as those in Somalia, are totally arbitrary and at the complete will of those at the top.


The fatal flaw in your line of reasoning is here:

Quote:
The people with the guns are in charge. The guy in charge of the people with guns makes the rules.


The armed thugs in Somalia are neither making nor enforcing rules. There are NO rules there, that is the part you're not grasping. The armed thugs aren't interested in rules, and neither create nor follow any. The guns are simply used to come into the villages and take whatever - and whoever - they want, drive by style, and then they vanish. Anyone who resists is, if lucky, beaten to within an inch of their life, or more often, simply gunned down (along with anyone who happens to be in or near the line of fire).

It is anarchy, plain and simple. No "dictatorship" of any kind exists, as the very term implies an organized (state level) body enforcing their (singular, whether person or party level) will on the body politic. No politics there, no state level organization (or anything remotely resembling it), and no established will that is enforced or obeyed. Therefore it cannot be a dictatorship because it lacks every element requisite in the definition of one.

Again, to see an example of a dictatorship, the best known and therefore most easily recognized are Saddam Hussein's Iraq and present day North Korea. Somalia bears absolutely no resemblance to either.

I know the reality there clashes with that Utopian ideal of yours as to what a state with no government (or significantly weakened government) "should" look like; but that is the reality of what it actually DOES look like. That doesn't make it something that it isn't though, such as a "dictatorship." It is a completely lawless society where there is no rule and therefore there cannot be a dictator or resulting dictatorship.

If you still can't understand the contradiction between dictatorship and lawless society that is absent any law and order, as exists in Somalia, then there's nothing more I can say on this that will make that contradiction clear to you.

-Spyder
 
Quote:
Therefore it cannot be a dictatorship because it lacks every element requisite in the definition of one.


Quote:
1: the office of dictator

2 : autocratic rule, control, or leadership

3 : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorship

Not seeing any "state level organization" (whatever that is) required??
 
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Leave our food and oil alone investors!

You do realize they are buying these things to ensure that you have them available?
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Originally Posted By: ZZman
Leave our food and oil alone investors!

You do realize they are buying these things to ensure that you have them available?


Yeah...I am sure they are thinking of all our best interests at heart. They should receive some type of humanitarian awards.

Wake up man. They are seeing potential dollars.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest


Quote:
1: the office of dictator

2 : autocratic rule, control, or leadership

3 : a form of government in which absolute power is concentrated in a dictator or a small clique b : a government organization or group in which absolute power is so concentrated c : a despotic state

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dictatorship

Not seeing any "state level organization" (whatever that is) required??


Its right in the the definition you underlined. Look at your underlined portion that says "a form of government." 'State level organization' and a 'a form of government' are synonymous and mean the same thing. Likewise, from your definition, "a government organization" carries the same meaning.

Let's turn back the clock and play "do you remember:" in 2001 we did not recognize the Taliban as legitimate government, nor Afghanistan as a legitimate state. Like the thugs in Somalia, they had the guns to make the rules. Unlike the thugs in Somalia, they were much more organized in that they had an ad hoc form of laws enacted (Sharia law) which they more or less enforced, and they also successfully (to some degree) kept the opium trade at bay by virtue of ad hoc enforcing that same law which forbade it.

Yet, again, we did not recognize Afghanistan as being a legitimate state or having a legitimate form of government. A dictatorship is a form of government. It doesn't exist in Somalia because the warlords there have even less of a claim to legitimacy than the Taliban had, and unlike the Taliban they enact no rules or laws of any kind, nor enforce them.

It isn't a dictatorship. It is a state of anarchy and the two can't co-exist. Anarchy is typically a transition state either FROM a dictatorship or TO a dictatorship. It can't be both and I don't see why you can't comprehend that.

-Spyder
 
Last edited:
Quote:
in 2001 we did not recognize the Taliban as legitimate government, nor Afghanistan as a legitimate state.

I'm sure the people that live under these "non-dictatorship" dictatorships appreciate the semantic differences that you pose.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
A military dictatorship, such as those in Somalia, are totally arbitrary and at the complete will of those at the top.


On the other hand a financial dictatorship(s) can sponsor competing politicians with threats of withdraw of campaign contribution, and therefore force them to draw ridiculous laws that benefit them at the cost of the average citizens.

Impacts include tax haven and tax vacation, industrial subsidization, tax loop hole, excessive government projects, regulation loophole, grandfathering of safety laws, etc.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
in 2001 we did not recognize the Taliban as legitimate government, nor Afghanistan as a legitimate state.

I'm sure the people that live under these "non-dictatorship" dictatorships appreciate the semantic differences that you pose.


I'm sure the people living there are fully aware that they live in a state of anarchy and don't view it as a dictatorship at all. The only person seemingly defining it as a dictatorship is you. And I can only assume are doing to to serve the interest of the argument you are making, rather than embracing the fact that on this point you are simply incorrect and moving on.

Spyder outlined the details as to what defines what as clear as can possibly be made. You are wrong. Move on.

Maybe use North Korea as your example this time?
 
Quote:
As I often say, government is a tool utilized by the private sector FOR the private sector. If government is used in abusive, corruptive, or other ways that become detrimental to the prosperity of the private sector then the citizens of that nation should very seriously reconsider its existence.


It's not black and white like Tempest makes it out to be. It's a balancing act.

The main flaw in Tempest's thinking is the Fallacy of Composition:

Quote:
Chang, who teaches economics at Cambridge University, pointed to a central error of libertarian thinking, the Fallacy of Composition. He gave this example:
“[W]hat is rational for individual actors may not be rational for the entire economy. For example, during an economic downturn, firms see demand for their products fall, while workers face increased chances of redundancy and wage cuts. In this situation, it is prudent for the individual firms and workers to reduce their spending. But if all economic actors reduce their expenditure, they will all be worse off, for the combined effect of such actions is a lower aggregate demand, which, in turn, further increases everyone’s chances of bankruptcy and redundancy.”–from _Bad Samaritans_
The only way to avoid the Fallacy is to recognize that each of us is both individual _and_ member of society. It’s a strange sort of “liberty” that denigrates the latter aspect of our reality."
 
Good quote buster. The clip you posted really nails it too. I can see why Tempest resisted so heavily in acknowledging the reality it went to that he had to find some other label to place on it rather than the one that actually fit.

It is indeed a balancing act, and most of us just disagree at exactly where the balance should be placed. Tempest takes the extreme view that tosses the baby out with the bath water. I think the Somalia clip was a little more than the cognitive dissonance could handle.
laugh.gif
 
What's the weights Pablo ?...$7.85/lb for "moisture infused" (10% water and mineral salt injected) Salmonella brand, and about $9.50 for supermarket free range.

Lamb Cutlets are $40/kilo...$19.50US/lb at the moment. Supermarket rump steak $14.50/lb, ground beef $5/lb.

Going vegetarian for $3.50 per cabbage, $4/lb for bell peppers, and $2.50/lb for rice makes about as much sense.
 
Originally Posted By: Pablo
Grocery strore: Two Foster Farms chicken breasts. $8.90. Two organic local chicken breasts. $9.40.

Wow.


Yea, that's way over priced, Pablo.

I buy almost nothing that is not on sale or has coupons. I buy enough of what is eaten each time to bridge the sale/coupon gap.
 
I don't remember the weights but they were not huge chunks of meat. It was shocking. Wife said I need to get out more often and listen to her when she says food is XX% of our budget.

No inflation?, my fat activity level!
 
Originally Posted By: buster
Looks like Mises Institute's Robert Murphy got taken to task by Cullen Roche. It's one thing to disagree with MMT, but at least get it right.

http://pragcap.com/the-austrians-are-intrigued


Quote:
“The government exists to further the prosperity of the private sector – NOT to benefit at its expense.”

History has shown this not to be the case, which is something the MMT people don't want to understand. They live in the ethos of best possible outcomes. And I have been told by Mossler himself that deficits have no negative effects on the economy "per say". Doesn't jive with that article.

Quote:
Government spending is not always bad. Government spending is not always good. Big brother isn’t necessarily our enemy. In fact, he can be our greatest ally if utilized correctly.

Government is NOT competent to make these decisions and it spends to effect political ends, not economic ones. It doesn't even have pricing and profit/loss information to work with. The only thing it has left is arbitrary units of measure that lead to gross mis-allocation of resources:
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/soviet_economy.htm

Every dollar the government spends distorts the market and causes inefficiency. If the government can spend limitless amounts of money (and it can), it has NO incentive to allocate resources efficiently as it can simply generate more money to do as it pleases. This has been shown consistently through history.

MMT people live in the imaginary world of money and charts that supposedly mean things. People don't eat money and you don't use it to power your car. Simply spending or generating money doesn't make people better. There are numerous countries, right now, with large unemployment and good amounts of inflation. This should not be possible, or at least rare, under what the MMT folks propose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom