Big Head Press Forum

Online Comics => Escape From Terra => Topic started by: Big.Swede on September 22, 2011, 09:43:24 am

Title: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Big.Swede on September 22, 2011, 09:43:24 am
Ok, so i was eyeing through the AnCap and natural disasters thread when my mind started doing little turns and twists. (Itīs known to do that, to the amusement and mental anguish of my friends.) Eventualy it stopped on what in the US is known as the Food and Drugs administration. (What those two has in common iīll never understand, but iīm guessing it is somewhat similar to Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. IE, not a bloody lot.)

Anyway, the FDA is there (itīs claimed) to make sure that what we buy in stores or are served in restaurants doesnīt contain germs or other stuff that will make us puke our guts out, or outright kill us. Same goes for drugs. A medication that does cure your headache but also gives you Ebola like symptoms realy doesnīt go down that well. Even if flavoured with raspberry. So, how would this be handled in an AnCap society?

It took me about 5 minutes to come up with an almost complete solution, and itīs pretty much self given. A corporation, small or large, that does what the FDA is supposed to be doing now. Company A (Medical) wants to introduce a new kind of aspirin on the market, so they go to company B, which does freelance testing and quality assurance. B does itīs tests and verifys that the product does indeed do what A says, and that it is safe to consume. So A gets the right to put a little tag with Bīs "thumbs up" on their packaging, or sales site, or whatever. Pretty much same thing goes for food.

So when you walk in the local store to pick up a bottle of headache pills and a beef for dinner, you can look at the packaging and see that brand X is checked out OK by Company B. That means you have double insurance against misshaps like tainted food or bad medicin. Not only would Company A want to remain in business, but B also likes to keep itīs customers (other companies) comming to them. Which they will not if B starts getting a reputation of OKing shoody products. As a consumer, you now have two potentials insurances against bad stuff, and should something go wrong anyway, you have two corps to take to arbitration.

Brand Y does not have any Company B markings, but it comes a bit cheaper and potentialy from a medical company that you already trust so you might get that instead. Or you are just willing to pocket the change and take your chances.

This was just a little thought experiment from my side. I was thinking of a way to... Incorporate, is that the right word? a govermental instance.
Any discussions about this i would be glad to take here.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: EENalley on September 22, 2011, 10:17:25 am
Actually there is a company who does this sort of thing already, only not with Food or Medicine.  It's called Underwriters Laboratories. (http://www.ul.com/global/eng/pages/)  And while they test electrical and fire safety devices, determine fire life of items and things along those lines, they're a perfect example of the kind of company you're talking about. 
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: GaTor on September 22, 2011, 11:53:48 am
There are many watchdog orgs of this sort, regarding food and such there is "Eat this and not that'.   Others that come to mind, Consumer Reports,  Carfax', Autocheck,  Consumer Digest, etc.  There are several more running around my forebrain hiding in the synapses.
They all do a fine job without the overburden and inefficiency of bureaucracy (God I hate that word, it's even a bitch to spell). 
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 22, 2011, 12:37:54 pm
There are many watchdog orgs of this sort, regarding food and such there is "Eat this and not that'.   Others that come to mind, Consumer Reports,  Carfax', Autocheck,  Consumer Digest, etc.  There are several more running around my forebrain hiding in the synapses.
They all do a fine job without the overburden and inefficiency of bureaucracy (God I hate that word, it's even a bitch to spell). 

Consumers Digest has what is known as a "credibility gap."  Not only do they take advertisements for products which they review, but, they will give their Seal of Approval to any company which pays them enough, regardless of the quality of said product.

Consumer Reports, as everybody knows, does not contain ads, nor do they award awards.
Also, they do not allow best of category products to use the CR name in the products advertising.

If you want to know what anarchic capitalism looks like in the food industry, look at China.
They do not have a (effective) food inspection service.  Protein-tests for milk are gotten around by using protein-derived poisons, etc.
In an An-Cap society, there would be private agents who will test foods and drugs, etc. for purity and safety sure; but what about the people who dont know about those agencies reports/cant afford to buy them/dont have the time to slog through multi-page treatises about which food is safe to eat this season?

The FDA and the Dept. of Ag maybe be inefficient and sometimes corrupt but, they do prevent the majority of Americans from getting sick and dying every day/week/season.
Not so much for drugs, though.

Same thing for Health Dept. inspections of food prep areas in restaurants and stores.
Not perfection, but at least it keeps you from dying from preventable food-borne illness.

In AnCap, you just find Joes Health Inspectors, pay them off and put up their seal of approval.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: GaTor on September 22, 2011, 01:22:50 pm

In AnCap, you just find Joes Health Inspectors, pay them off and put up their seal of approval.

As you indicated, even in government services nothing is perfect.  so it is with any commercial service/enterprise.  But, in an AnCap society or even in a transition type of society, those issues are much more self-correcting than in a government backed and protected bureaucracy.   If "Joe's health Inspectors" ain't cutting it and people are dying and getting sick then they will lose out to "Annie's Food Assessors" or "Vinnie’s' Victual Verifiers".    Checks and balances of which there are not enough of in today’s government(s).   One of the major downsides of when you let government make these determination they go overboard and abuse their authority.  I cite Michelle Obama's fatassed hypocritical campaign against childhood obesity.  Or San Francisco's war against McDonalds kids meals.  NONE OF THEIR DAM BUSINESS!   I remember back in the 1980s, the FDAs and AMAs claims that salt was leading to all kinds of health problems, especially concerning the heart.  It took about ten years before they finally admitted that their study really only applied to those people with underlying heart problems and other conditions.  Their conclusions affected less than 12% of the population but they applied it to everyone.  Government is rife with this type of abuse. 
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Scott on September 22, 2011, 10:38:10 pm
My wife works for Target Stores, as a floor manager. At times she's in charge of the grocery section, and she explained to me that the store gets two varieties of health inspector -- the county's, and a private firm hired by Target. They don't inspect the packaged food directly (except some of what is served in the snack bar), but they do inspect for clean practices, removal of expired products from shelves, etc.

And my wife tells me that Target's private inspector is considerably tougher than the county inspector. And this is because Target fears lawsuits and bad publicity if any food they sell sickens a customer. But nobody ever sued a county health inspector for failing to find a problem.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: quadibloc on September 23, 2011, 07:54:38 am
Upton Sinclair wrote a book, titled The Jungle, which perhaps helped bring in the age of government food inspectors.

Now, he was a utopian socialist. But, at the time, the abuses he was publicizing were a real problem; companies weren't as vulnerable to lawsuits as they are now (this, of course, has gone too far, with many famous frivolous ones) and tests to determine what caused someone's illness weren't as advanced.

In Britain, the threat of libel suits kept people there from being informed of the dangers of Thalidomide.

Maybe this was just government interference to balance out the effects of previous government interference, and so AnCap could get it right - but government food inspectors had been performing a useful service at least at one time.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on September 23, 2011, 02:32:08 pm
Actually there is a company who does this sort of thing already, only not with Food or Medicine

There is for medicine (and dietary supplements as well): U.S. Pharmacopeia (http://www.usp.org/ (http://www.usp.org/)).
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on September 23, 2011, 02:51:47 pm
Quote
government food inspectors had been performing a useful service at least at one time.

They're people -- they can't get it wrong all the time! :D

I work with a couple of FDA researchers.  If everyone in that agency were like Dave & Bill, we'd all be fine.

So we see, with Mr. Sinclair, that there can be major, deadly problems when the industry is unregulated.  And we see with government that "health" care is easily the #3 cause of death (http://www.drug-education.info/documents/iatrogenic.pdf)  (Other things I might cite are still officially "controversial" and since the government says they're OK they must be OK unless you're a tin-foil-hat nutter, but Starfield's still with the AMA and Johns Hopkins, so I link to her study.)

Regulated or un-, we have dangers.  Q:  if there had been no government in Sinclair's day, would it have been easier for those sickened by the greedy businessmen to have retaliated?  Likewise for modern China:  the absence of a specific governmental regulatory agency does not equal a state of anarchy.

Is there anything more than faith, that dangers are fewer with a government in place than they are without one?  What is the mechanism of the increased safety?  It can't be greater accountability, not when representatives (or "representatives") can ignore 300 "nay" calls from constituents in favor of 1 "yea" and still can't be voted (or "voted") out of office.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: quadibloc on September 25, 2011, 10:57:24 am
Regulated or un-, we have dangers.  Q:  if there had been no government in Sinclair's day, would it have been easier for those sickened by the greedy businessmen to have retaliated?  Likewise for modern China:  the absence of a specific governmental regulatory agency does not equal a state of anarchy.
True enough. But I don't think it was just politicians wanting to hold on to their power that saw regulating the production of food as a much more reasonable solution than simply to scale back police power (primarily used to protect people against what are ZAP violations) to such an extent that mobs could take the law into their own hands, and sometimes find the wrong targets.

The FDA was seen as a way to get rid of an old danger without creating a new one which could be worse.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on September 25, 2011, 12:43:32 pm
Quote
The FDA was seen as a way to get rid of an old danger without creating a new one which could be worse.

I'm sure it was.  Did it work?

I say, no "normal" can design a system that cannot be co-opted by the psychopaths.  You're buying only the illusion of security to believe that it can be done -- and doesn't that put you even more at risk, to believe you're safe(r) when you're not?  You fear the guerrilla warfare situation, and dont, or can't, see that just as much danger & death is going on anyway, just with different tools.

Government systems let some have the happy illusion of security (writing off "iatrogenic", government-caused, ills as "surely" less bad than they'd be without government) while at the same time preventing some of the rest of us from being able to defend ourselves against the institutional thieves and killers -- but especially against the well-intentioned idiots.  You know what is said to pave the road to Hell, of course.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: macsnafu on September 26, 2011, 08:52:15 am
There are many watchdog orgs of this sort, regarding food and such there is "Eat this and not that'.   Others that come to mind, Consumer Reports,  Carfax', Autocheck,  Consumer Digest, etc.  There are several more running around my forebrain hiding in the synapses.
They all do a fine job without the overburden and inefficiency of bureaucracy (God I hate that word, it's even a bitch to spell). 

Consumers Digest has what is known as a "credibility gap."  Not only do they take advertisements for products which they review, but, they will give their Seal of Approval to any company which pays them enough, regardless of the quality of said product.

Consumer Reports, as everybody knows, does not contain ads, nor do they award awards.
Also, they do not allow best of category products to use the CR name in the products advertising.


Same thing for Health Dept. inspections of food prep areas in restaurants and stores.
Not perfection, but at least it keeps you from dying from preventable food-borne illness.

In AnCap, you just find Joes Health Inspectors, pay them off and put up their seal of approval.

Hmm...you recognize that Consumer's Digest has a credibility problem, why do you think it would be difficult to recognize when Joe's Health Inspectors has a credibility problem?  A Seal of Approval is only good if the consumers think it is good.  If they don't trust Joe's Health Inspectors, then Joe will have to go to greater lengths to make his inspections credible to the consumers.   

I worked my share of fast food when I was younger, and the local City/County health department seemed to get in our way when we were in the middle of a lunch rush, or at best, were protecting the restaurants more than they were protecting the customers.

The problem is that without some kind of feedback loop, and without the proper incentives, they can never know if they're being too picky or not picky enough.  Assuming that they have the best of intentions, even.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mcc1789 on September 26, 2011, 10:57:03 am
Upton Sinclair wrote a book, titled The Jungle, which perhaps helped bring in the age of government food inspectors.

Now, he was a utopian socialist. But, at the time, the abuses he was publicizing were a real problem; companies weren't as vulnerable to lawsuits as they are now (this, of course, has gone too far, with many famous frivolous ones) and tests to determine what caused someone's illness weren't as advanced.

Actually, the Chicago meat-packing industry had long been regulated. Sinclair never visited the meatpacking plants, nor did he claim to. On the other hand, millions of others had, both government inspectors and other visitors-none ever made such accusations of horrible conditions. All Sinclair managed to do was get more regulation (by the Feds instead of the Illinois state government) which, of course, taxpayers in general, not the meatpackers only, had to pay for. This also helped to drive out small competitors of the larger companies (as usual). Sinclair actually opposed the law himself, as he recognized it had actually benefited them. http://www.mackinac.org/4084
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: dough560 on September 27, 2011, 03:31:59 pm
As with any AnCap operation, an inspector service is only as good as its reputation. Their seal of approval only has value based on their reputation.  It is in the provider's and service company's best interest to provide the best service possible.  Failure to do so will result in consumer distrust.  Eventually a new provider and or service company will replace them.  Failures of service could results in arbitration(s) hastening the demise of the provider and service companies.

The consumer benefits due to competition from competing providers and service companies.  The provider must provide service or materials to meet market demand.  The service company must maintain high standards to be creditable. ensuring sound reputations for the provider and service companies.

Even with the protections of government regulators and inspectors, any company not instituting said policies, soon fails.  The difference being the government does not have to maintain their repetition, for they have a controlling monopoly of services.  Without their blessing, you have no business.  And they will use whatever force they deem necessary to enforce their decisions.  In the AnCap society, consumer decisions are let to the consumer, no force or thereat of force involved.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 27, 2011, 05:16:02 pm
As with any AnCap operation, an inspector service is only as good as its reputation. Their seal of approval only has value based on their reputation.  It is in the provider's and service company's best interest to provide the best service possible.  Failure to do so will result in consumer distrust.  Eventually a new provider and or service company will replace them.  Failures of service could results in arbitration(s) hastening the demise of the provider and service companies.

The consumer benefits due to competition from competing providers and service companies.  The provider must provide service or materials to meet market demand.  The service company must maintain high standards to be creditable. ensuring sound reputations for the provider and service companies.

Even with the protections of government regulators and inspectors, any company not instituting said policies, soon fails.  The difference being the government does not have to maintain their repetition, for they have a controlling monopoly of services.  Without their blessing, you have no business.  And they will use whatever force they deem necessary to enforce their decisions.  In the AnCap society, consumer decisions are let to the consumer, no force or thereat of force involved.

Two of the things I love about AnCap are "lawsuits/arbitration" and "no threat of force".
Outside of small frontier communities, they are total nonsense.
One, you cant have a "lawsuit" where there are no laws; and who pays the arbitrator?

In todays society, arbitrators are paid by the large corporations who have them on retainer.  Alot of modern contracts have stipulations that you cannot sue them, you must agree to binding arbitration with the arbitrator of the company's choice.
In the rare instance that the complainant is allowed to choose an arbitrator, that arbitrator is still paid for by the defending company.
What arbitrator is going to rule against his own paycheck?

Same thing for AnCap.  Who pays the arbitrator?  If they are truly neutral, where does their income come from?

Two, this quaint notion that there will be peace in our time.  Organized crime loves anarchy.  They also love the ZAP; "you pay us for protection, and we dont aggress you, right?"
Not every shopkeeper, nor every citizen will maintain overwhelming force against man's violent nature (aka criminals) 24/7.
As the criminals say, "you gotta sleep sometime." 
Who wants to shop somewhere that feels like Fort Knox?  And not in the good, "we want you to feel safe while youre here" way, but the "everybody is armed to the teeth and giving every customer the hairy eyeball" way.

How do you deter criminals?  Or do you just say, "I'm glad it wasnt my shop/house/business that got broken into/vandalized/firebombed, and too bad for them"?

There is a role for some kind of enforcement.  Todays world may not be perfect, but you can live in it.
Tax-paid protection means police; subscription protection means private police.  But are tribute payments paid for protection.  Both arrive too late to be any good, and both can be corrupted.  Whats the difference?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on September 27, 2011, 08:05:47 pm
Quote
Two of the things I love about AnCap are [...]

CG, one of the things I love about you is your inability to accept an answer to any of your questions, thereby providing endless opportunities to answer them over and over for the benefit of new lurkers, or to emphasize by repetition for those of longer standing.

You're quite right, you can't have a formal lawsuit when there are no laws.  That doesn't stop us using "lawsuit" in what we might call a colloquial sense, a shorthand for "bringing a dispute to arbitration."  That you seem to think objecting to this use of the term is an objection to AnCap of enough power to be worth expressing does no credit to the rest of your philosophical armament, though.

In today's society, companies who can enforce use of their own pet arbitrators are backed up by the full force of government.

Who pays the arbitrator in an AnCap?  There are all kinds of possibilities.  The one currently in use in Fairbanks, Alaska's alternative system has some means of paying the "judge", the "court recorder" and all 12 "jurors" one ounce of silver per hour; I haven't listened to all the guy's talk to know just how theirs works, but it evidently does.

Another possibility is:  no one. Personally,  I'd serve as an arbitrator as a service, a duty if you will, to my community.  I don't think "arbitrator" as a career, a means of making a living, is such a good idea, but maybe that's just me.

Other clever folks will no doubt present still more possibilities.  See, in an AnCap, you're not bound by regulation to keep doing the same things over and over whether or not they work.

How does AnCap deter criminals?  Bwahaha, you ask as if you think that laws and police and jails and hangings do.

I know you read this of mine before, but thank you for allowing me to repeat it for new folks:

Those who commit crimes of passion are, by definition, not thinking ahead, so no threat of punishment is going to deter them.  Deterrence is only possible for those who have at least a possibility of having a second thought.

Of those, we have the smart, the stupid, and the ordinary thinkers.

Really, genuinely smart criminals can figure out how not to get caught, so any threat of punishment isn't going to deter them.  Indeed, some of them may find the threat of punishment just adds spice to the game.

Really stupid criminals think they're smart enough not to get caught, so deterrence doesn't work against them, either.

That leaves those who aren't impassioned, who aren't brilliant but who are clever enough to consider the possibility of jail &c, to be deterred.  At least some of those are simply going to take the risk, run the odds, and often, the immediate perceived benefit tends to outweigh a hypothetical later penalty.  Some may just not give a damn -- while others may actually want to go to jail.

How well did George III's capital punishment for treason work to deter Nathan Hale?

AnCap has no means to "deter" criminals -- and neither does any government.  Take your own question back, if you dare (if you can, which you can't, so you will ignore this, too):  how does government deter those who would use the very functions of government for criminal ends, such as a politician who rigs the vote so he can embezzle tax monies, or for the sheer rush of power, or to harass his enemies a la Nixon -- or all of the above?

Quote
There is a role for some kind of enforcement.  Todays world may not be perfect, but you can live in it.

Live -- like Steve Biko, you mean?  Like the unarmed fleeing 12-year-old in Pennsylvania shot in the back by two/2 armed cops, one of 'em a repeat offender, kind of thing?  At least, in an AnCap society, I can freakin' shoot back.

"[W]e most solemnly declare ... [that we are] with one mind resolved to die freemen rather than to live slaves."  Jefferson & Dickinson, On the Necessity of Taking Up Arms -- which was, of course, quite illegal of them, dontcha know.

Go ahead, bend over and take it if you want to.


So you've presented, 1) a nitpick over choice of language; 2), the argument from incredulity ("if it seems an insurmountable objection to me, then it is truly insurmountable" kind of thing); 3) demanding that the other side solve a problem that your own side can't; and 4) well, sheer cowardice.  Dude.



Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: quadibloc on September 28, 2011, 11:10:35 pm
How does AnCap deter criminals?  Bwahaha, you ask as if you think that laws and police and jails and hangings do.

I know you read this of mine before, but thank you for allowing me to repeat it for new folks:

Those who commit crimes of passion are, by definition, not thinking ahead, so no threat of punishment is going to deter them.  Deterrence is only possible for those who have at least a possibility of having a second thought.

Of those, we have the smart, the stupid, and the ordinary thinkers.

Really, genuinely smart criminals can figure out how not to get caught, so any threat of punishment isn't going to deter them.  Indeed, some of them may find the threat of punishment just adds spice to the game.

Really stupid criminals think they're smart enough not to get caught, so deterrence doesn't work against them, either.

That leaves those who aren't impassioned, who aren't brilliant but who are clever enough to consider the possibility of jail &c, to be deterred.  At least some of those are simply going to take the risk, run the odds, and often, the immediate perceived benefit tends to outweigh a hypothetical later penalty.  Some may just not give a damn -- while others may actually want to go to jail.

How well did George III's capital punishment for treason work to deter Nathan Hale?

AnCap has no means to "deter" criminals -- and neither does any government.
This seems so obvious! Why didn't I think of it before?

Oh, wait a moment.

Laws and prisons don't deter crime perfectly. Some crime still exists. The people who commit the crimes that still happen are the criminals, and none of them were deterred, and they fall into the categories above that you've listed.

Guess who does get deterred by penalties for crime? Dishonest people who would be willing to steal from others and so on, but who are smart enough to realize they would get caught if they did.

How many people are in that category? I can't prove anything, but most people think that there are lots of dishonest people who would commit crimes if not for our criminal justice system, but, because it exists, confine themselves to modest amusements like malicious gossip, malingering at work, and so on and so forth.

Your argument seems to simply make that category disappear by sleight-of-hand.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 29, 2011, 12:58:12 am
How does AnCap deter criminals?  Bwahaha, you ask as if you think that laws and police and jails and hangings do.

But you still didnt answer the question.  How does an AnCap society deter crime?

You'll notice that most neighborhoods are not hotbeds of criminal activity.  Thats probably true in AnCap as well; but why?

What deters criminals from committing crime?  You say its not the govt, ok; the govt may not deter crime, but yet, it may.

But if govt police dont deter criminals in todays world, what does?

And without those police, what is there in an AnCap society to deter criminals?
Sure the homeowner can shoot back; sure they can hire alarm companies and private police.  But if those dont deter crime in todays world, how would they deter crime in an AnCap world?

What is there to deter the smart burglar who attacks in the daytime while the homeowner is at work?  Police today dont stop carjackings.  So how would an AnCapper?
If a guy sticks a gun in your face, with the safety off and the hammer cocked, how are you going to pull your gun, take off the safety and fire it before the carjacker shoots you?

You see, whatever does deter crime today, might not be there in an AnCap world.  Especially in the case of the petty crook who hears Anarcho... and thinks "anarchy."  In an anarchy there are no laws, and no cops, so crime is easy(until he get his face blown off, of course).
But until that time, he is not deterred.

What deters crime in an anarchy? 

You never answered.

But its OK; I'll wait.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on September 29, 2011, 06:47:38 am
Quote
Guess who does get deterred by penalties for crime? Dishonest people who would be willing to steal from others and so on, but who are smart enough to realize they would get caught if they did.

Very true.  Guess what?  That same process works whether the penalties come from On High or simply from outraged neighbors.  So, I was wrong:  AnCap does have a process for deterring crime, or at least -- as you pointed out -- some crime:  since we're human and do live in community and therefore are hardwired to make some concessions to community standards, this deterrent process exists whether we have a government or not.  It arises out of our human nature, "human nature" not being a wholly evil thing, you know.

Quote
Your argument seems to simply make that category disappear by sleight-of-hand.

You mean, where I said:

Quote
That leaves those who aren't impassioned, who aren't brilliant but who are clever enough to consider the possibility of jail &c, to be deterred.

All I did then was remove the ones who don't care, or who, in the moment, weigh the possibility of punishment more lightly than the possibility of reward.

And in another place I likened government to tossing a blanket over your head for protection but you still get mugged, and said, "Since you believe the blanket protects you, you must think, 'Wow!  If it's this bad with the blanket, it must be ever so much worse without it!'"

Since you believe government does protect you, you infer that things would be worse without it -- in the absence of actual data to that effect.  I say, if you add up all the official, formally-defined crime (theft, murder, driving too fast on a road with a ridiculously-low but official limit, having sex with a minor who's only a few weeks younger than yourself) that occurs even with a government in place, and then add in all the things that a freeman would never put up with but which are accepted as the price of government protection -- taxes, TSA gropedowns, whimsical revocation of soi-disant "rights", kinds of things -- you get a sum total of crime to compare to that in a true anarchy.

Please to include "archogenic" ("ruler-caused") offenses in your evaluations.  It's so not fair to leave them out.

Quote
What deters crime in an anarchy?

You never answered.

But its OK; I'll wait.

I said,

Quote
AnCap has no means to "deter" criminals -- and neither does any government.

Emphasis added.  I also said,

Quote
CG, one of the things I love about you is your inability to accept an answer to any of your questions

and you immediately justified that.  Sigh.

But quadibloc just made me see the error of my ways.  My above answer was wrong.  Human nature impels us to commit crimes.  It also impels us not to.  This works whether we have overlords or not, i.e., it will be as true of an an-archy as of *-archy.

And, like quadibloc, you don't address, or even admit, crime committed by the very institutions and officers set up to deter crime -- the ones against whom it's illegal to defend oneself.  YOU never answered the question:  how does government deter those who would use the very functions of government for criminal ends?  Under government, who or what protects us from our protectors, when the dark side of their human nature emerges?

Or does putting them in office have some magic power?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on September 29, 2011, 09:09:11 am
Quote
Guess who does get deterred by penalties for crime? Dishonest people who would be willing to steal from others and so on, but who are smart enough to realize they would get caught if they did.

Very true.  Guess what?  That same process works whether the penalties come from On High or simply from outraged neighbors.  So, I was wrong:  AnCap does have a process for deterring crime, or at least -- as you pointed out -- some crime:  since we're human and do live in community and therefore are hardwired to make some concessions to community standards, this deterrent process exists whether we have a government or not.  It arises out of our human nature, "human nature" not being a wholly evil thing, you know.

Quote
Your argument seems to simply make that category disappear by sleight-of-hand.

You mean, where I said:

Quote
That leaves those who aren't impassioned, who aren't brilliant but who are clever enough to consider the possibility of jail &c, to be deterred.

All I did then was remove the ones who don't care, or who, in the moment, weigh the possibility of punishment more lightly than the possibility of reward.

And in another place I likened government to tossing a blanket over your head for protection but you still get mugged, and said, "Since you believe the blanket protects you, you must think, 'Wow!  If it's this bad with the blanket, it must be ever so much worse without it!'"

Since you believe government does protect you, you infer that things would be worse without it -- in the absence of actual data to that effect.  I say, if you add up all the official, formally-defined crime (theft, murder, driving too fast on a road with a ridiculously-low but official limit, having sex with a minor who's only a few weeks younger than yourself) that occurs even with a government in place, and then add in all the things that a freeman would never put up with but which are accepted as the price of government protection -- taxes, TSA gropedowns, whimsical revocation of soi-disant "rights", kinds of things -- you get a sum total of crime to compare to that in a true anarchy.

Please to include "archogenic" ("ruler-caused") offenses in your evaluations.  It's so not fair to leave them out.

Quote
What deters crime in an anarchy?

You never answered.

But its OK; I'll wait.

I said,

Quote
AnCap has no means to "deter" criminals -- and neither does any government.

Emphasis added.  I also said,

Quote
CG, one of the things I love about you is your inability to accept an answer to any of your questions

and you immediately justified that.  Sigh.

But quadibloc just made me see the error of my ways.  My above answer was wrong.  Human nature impels us to commit crimes.  It also impels us not to.  This works whether we have overlords or not, i.e., it will be as true of an an-archy as of *-archy.

And, like quadibloc, you don't address, or even admit, crime committed by the very institutions and officers set up to deter crime -- the ones against whom it's illegal to defend oneself.  YOU never answered the question:  how does government deter those who would use the very functions of government for criminal ends?  Under government, who or what protects us from our protectors, when the dark side of their human nature emerges?

Or does putting them in office have some magic power?

You know the saying "it only keep honest people honest"?  Where is that magic force in AnCap?

Just to prove that I am not totally ignorant of evil policing, did you hear about the LA county jail gangs?
You know the gangs of sheriffs deputys, beating up the prisoners for fun.
The same deputys who wont ever be fired, because no-one else wants to be a jail guard.

Nothing deterred them from crime, so all police officers must be evil corrupt monsters, right? 
And all the fireman, and aid car paramedics, and hospital workers, and teachers, and mailmen.

They are all horrible, evil corrupt monstrosities that must be destroyed.

Its what all the AnCappers have said; all govt are evil, and evil must be abolished for the
betterment of all mankind.

I dare you to show me an honest policeman, or other government worker; if you can.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on September 29, 2011, 12:36:42 pm
Quote
You know the saying "it only keep honest people honest"?  Where is that magic force in AnCap?

Beats the hell out of me.  Where is it anywhere?

Quote
Nothing deterred them from crime, so all police officers must be evil corrupt monsters, right?

Argument from absurdity, now?  It's so easy to defeat the other guy's argument when you turn it into something it isn't.

I'll recap what I think the "we need government" position is:  Humans are capable of great evil; also of lesser evils.  Some kind of system, or program is needed, or desired, or proposed, in order to deter the commission of those evils, aka government.

Did I miss something?  Did I exaggerate or misrepresent anything?

I agree that humans are capable of evils, greater and lesser.  I entirely, wholeheartedly agree.  I think, in fact, that it's indisputable.

Therefore all police officers must be capable of being evil corrupt monsters.  Heck, even if they were robots, they could be programmed to be monsters.

What do you gain when you take my perfectly reasonable assertion of potential -- "all can be monsters" -- and turn it into an assertion of identity -- "all ARE monsters"?

Obviously not all police are monsters.  Obviously not all humans are monsters, either -- but you still feel the need to be protected from them.  I'm still trying to figure out how the government-advocates figure that cops and judges and wardens and all are "humans I can trust", humans from whom we don't need to be protected, apparently very special humans.

Now, you've agreed that the protectors can and do abuse their offices.  Tell me:  do they commit fewer crimes than the rest of us?  If so, why is that -- especially given that they are in prime position not to get caught, since they are the catchers, and thus have less power of deterrence working on them?

If not -- if they, being human, are just as likely to be criminals as the rest of us -- why should we give them special powers over the rest of us?  What, specifically, does that accomplish?

And, hey, you've just conceded the existence of corrupt, dangerous "protectors".  Please observe that no, not all police are evil corrupt monsters -- even though they are in so much better position to get away with it.  In fact, they really are precious few, aren't they?

What does that tell you about human nature and the "need" to be policed -- that not even those who can so readily evade or elude punishment nonetheless just don't misbehave all that often?

Quote
Its what all the AnCappers have said; all govt are evil

Government is evil because when the police do violate my trust, I have no defense against them; I am held helpless by the system -- by my neighbors who, even if they agree that the policeman is violating my rights, have been trained to stand back and let "the system" work.  In an anarchy, I can and do protect myself -- against anyone who offers me harm.  And, gosh, I'll even come to my neighbors' aid, simply because I am an animal of community.

Why do you trust a stranger with a uniform and a badge more than you trust a stranger without them?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: dough560 on October 01, 2011, 06:16:28 am
CG and others never believe individuals are able to govern themselves without governments as overlords.  Regardless of the discussion, they believe all men seek power, are monsters to be controlled by other monsters given power ...  Masters to control their lives.  The lives they are afraid to take responsibility for.  In their fear, they see us as them. 

Governments have a vested interest in encouraging and institutionalizing this fear, for it means they continue to do business as usual.  This is done through civil rights restrictions....

Cultural and Societal Evolution continues to limit government power.  Government supplicants dream of the "good old days", and are the first to use force, to keep things as "they should be."  They condemn any act of self-defense or limitations on government power.

The TransProg dream of a world government controlling every aspect of an individual's life is already showing signs of being still-born.  De-evolution of government can be followed from the Emperors and other Royals to Representative Governments.  At each stage of government de-evolution, individual freedom has grown.  The ideal of freedom became pervasive with each improvement in individual communication and education. 

Government's (and their supplicants) greatest fear is an active movement promoting individual freedom.  In the U.S. the removal of arms prohibitions and subsequent education of individual responsibilities are the results of the individual reach and search for freedom.  The burgeoning demand for reduction in government and government regulation will continue.   As individuals learn individual responsibility they recognize the restrictions governments place on their lives and their hopes for the future.

As Libertarian Literature spreads (In-spite of the seaming censorship in places like Hollywood.) so will the ideals and ethics.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on October 10, 2011, 07:51:18 pm
CG and others never believe individuals are able to govern themselves without governments as overlords.  Regardless of the discussion, they believe all men seek power, are monsters to be controlled by other monsters given power ...  Masters to control their lives.  The lives they are afraid to take responsibility for.  In their fear, they see us as them. 

Governments have a vested interest in encouraging and institutionalizing this fear, for it means they continue to do business as usual.  This is done through civil rights restrictions....

Cultural and Societal Evolution continues to limit government power.  Government supplicants dream of the "good old days", and are the first to use force, to keep things as "they should be."  They condemn any act of self-defense or limitations on government power.

The TransProg dream of a world government controlling every aspect of an individual's life is already showing signs of being still-born.  De-evolution of government can be followed from the Emperors and other Royals to Representative Governments.  At each stage of government de-evolution, individual freedom has grown.  The ideal of freedom became pervasive with each improvement in individual communication and education. 

Government's (and their supplicants) greatest fear is an active movement promoting individual freedom.  In the U.S. the removal of arms prohibitions and subsequent education of individual responsibilities are the results of the individual reach and search for freedom.  The burgeoning demand for reduction in government and government regulation will continue.   As individuals learn individual responsibility they recognize the restrictions governments place on their lives and their hopes for the future.

As Libertarian Literature spreads (In-spite of the seaming censorship in places like Hollywood.) so will the ideals and ethics.

Hi guys, I'm back.
I will grant that some individuals can govern themselves, and some cannot.
Governments problem lies in the fact that the governed willingly turn over their power to someone else.
You should trust a stranger in uniform just like you would trust any stranger: cautiously, but with respect.
The problem with lack of government is shown in multiple places in the modern world:
Somalia.  It has a government, technically, but not outside the walls of the government compound.  The Muslim warlords are practicing a type of Anarcho-Capitalism; obviously not the type seen in EFT, but a type nonetheless.

In the U.S., government powerlessness is being shown up every day.  Previous Republican governments have tried to shove the US economy as far toward An-Cap as they could, by removing regulations and restrictions.
The people with the money (and without it in many cases) took advantage of this and showed what an unrestricted free market (that is to say anarchic capitalism) looked like.
Enter the financial meltdown.
I'm sure none of you are aware of why Wall Street had regulations in the first place.  And no, it isnt because government is evil or TransProgs (who hadnt even been invented yet) wanted to rule the world with a One World Govt.
It was because Wall Street had a financial meltdown every 10 to 15 years.  Can you imagine a Meltdown every ten years?  It would be disastrous for businesses. 
And it was.  So, regulation.

This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

If you live in a city of, say, 10 million people, how do you enforce the no-aggression principle?
10 million people living in peace and harmony is Utopia.

Also, how do you prevent collusion among companies?  It has been said that you just quit using one company and go their competitor.
But, what if all the companies in your three state region (would you really drive 3 states away to avoid high prices?) in one industry, say dairy products, had secretly colluded to raise prices and keep them high?
Obviously you cant prevent that in An-Cap, but what do you do if its happening?
Just accept whatever they want to charge?  Drive three states away just to get a lower price on a gallon of milk?

This is why AnCap only works on communes and wild frontier communities.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on October 11, 2011, 08:00:26 am
The problem with lack of government is shown in multiple places in the modern world:
Somalia.  It has a government, technically, but not outside the walls of the government compound.  The Muslim warlords are practicing a type of Anarcho-Capitalism; obviously not the type seen in EFT, but a type nonetheless.

I have seen this example given frequently in a variety of venues; unfortunately, it is a poor example.

First, each of the warlords is the head of a de facto government.  These governments are almost constantly in dispute with one another, and are generally funded by outside interests (generally other governments) in the hope that a given set of warlords "wins" and will deal favorably with the outside funders.  With this multiplicity of governments, there is no anarchy.

Second, these warlords do not respect the property of others; without recognition of and respect for the property of others (be they other warlords or those who who are their victims) as the underpinning for the exchange of goods and services, there is no capitalism.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Killydd on October 11, 2011, 10:53:50 am
The problem with lack of government is shown in multiple places in the modern world:
Somalia.  It has a government, technically, but not outside the walls of the government compound.  The Muslim warlords are practicing a type of Anarcho-Capitalism; obviously not the type seen in EFT, but a type nonetheless.

I have seen this example given frequently in a variety of venues; unfortunately, it is a poor example.

First, each of the warlords is the head of a de facto government.  These governments are almost constantly in dispute with one another, and are generally funded by outside interests (generally other governments) in the hope that a given set of warlords "wins" and will deal favorably with the outside funders.  With this multiplicity of governments, there is no anarchy.

Second, these warlords do not respect the property of others; without recognition of and respect for the property of others (be they other warlords or those who who are their victims) as the underpinning for the exchange of goods and services, there is no capitalism.


I'd have to say that you're right:  The problem is that this is not your perfect AnCap, but rather what happens once people with some greed and power get their hands on it.  It doesn't matter too much where the funding comes from, as long as it's sufficient fora group of people to decide to enforce their will on another group.  How do you think the concept of a government got started in the first place?  It doesn't matter that most people are willing to live peacefully and with respect for eachother, as long as there's a few that are willing to take what they want by force.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on October 11, 2011, 12:11:25 pm
The problem with lack of government is shown in multiple places in the modern world:
Somalia.  It has a government, technically, but not outside the walls of the government compound.  The Muslim warlords are practicing a type of Anarcho-Capitalism; obviously not the type seen in EFT, but a type nonetheless.

I have seen this example given frequently in a variety of venues; unfortunately, it is a poor example.

First, each of the warlords is the head of a de facto government.  These governments are almost constantly in dispute with one another, and are generally funded by outside interests (generally other governments) in the hope that a given set of warlords "wins" and will deal favorably with the outside funders.  With this multiplicity of governments, there is no anarchy.

Second, these warlords do not respect the property of others; without recognition of and respect for the property of others (be they other warlords or those who who are their victims) as the underpinning for the exchange of goods and services, there is no capitalism.


I'd have to say that you're right:  The problem is that this is not your perfect AnCap, but rather what happens once people with some greed and power get their hands on it.  It doesn't matter too much where the funding comes from, as long as it's sufficient fora group of people to decide to enforce their will on another group.  How do you think the concept of a government got started in the first place?  It doesn't matter that most people are willing to live peacefully and with respect for eachother, as long as there's a few that are willing to take what they want by force.

I agree with Rule about Somalia; like I said its not a perfect example.

But neither he nor you answered my other questions at the end of the post.  If there are no answers, thats fine; if the answers havent been come up with yet, thats fine too.

I just wish that someone would say so.  What is the state of the answers to my questions?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on October 11, 2011, 03:15:37 pm
I have seen this example [of Somalia] given frequently in a variety of venues; unfortunately, it is a poor example.
I'd have to say that you're right:  The problem is that this is not your perfect AnCap, but rather what happens once people with some greed and power get their hands on it.  It doesn't matter too much where the funding comes from, as long as it's sufficient fora group of people to decide to enforce their will on another group.  How do you think the concept of a government got started in the first place?  It doesn't matter that most people are willing to live peacefully and with respect for eachother, as long as there's a few that are willing to take what they want by force.

The error here is in assuming that there is some "perfect" AnCap structure.  Utopia is not an option, and AnCap advocates repeat this almost ad nauseum.    Utopia is simply a "straw man" deployed by AnCap opponents to facilitate their otherwise weak arguments.

That being said, assume (an AnCap adherents do) that there are similar numbers of people who will act unethically in both AnCap and government-based societies.  Those individuals will seek out power and wealth in both cases and further they will engage in unethical behavior to gain it.  Those in government-based societies will tend, in large part, to be attracted to positions in (or close to) government, as (a) government is a nexus of power and wealth, and (b) the tools of government (specifically the license to threaten and/or use force) make it both easier and less obvious to take act unethically.   Further, as that power is gathered, one use will be to support those sympathetic to that approach, which means even more individuals who accept (and likely engage in)  the unethical uses of power.

Compare this to an AnCap society.  The unethical individuals in these societies will have a much wiser set of targets to attempt to infiltrate.  They may succeed to some degree; however, their unethical actions will be more difficult to camouflage as they look far less like acceptable behavior.  Further, since the points at which they attempt to gain such influence will be more diffuse, and it will be much more difficult for a "critical mass" of similar individuals to gather significant power.  That diffusion reduces both their ability to do so safely (since they will have far less insulation), and the tools for disempowering them will be greater, since those who object can simply avoid doing business with them, instead relying on their more ethical competitors.  Even should they be able to cobble together a monopoly, they will still be hampered by others entering the market at competitors and thus break the monopoly (or at least keep them from being "egregiously" unethical).

In both cases, of course, these unethical individuals may seek to use violent force.  In the government model, the use of such force may be camouflaged by the idea that the government has the sole authority to use such force -- a fact that the unethical will use to their advantage.  In the AnCap model, the use of such force will be met with the use of violent force in response -- a fact that will be well-known to those deciding to initiate it, and one which (without being able to fleece taxpayers to pay for or to give tacit support to) will be quite expensive to maintain.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Bob G on October 11, 2011, 06:54:16 pm
This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.

Quote
Also, how do you prevent collusion among companies?  It has been said that you just quit using one company and go their competitor.
But, what if all the companies in your three state region (would you really drive 3 states away to avoid high prices?) in one industry, say dairy products, had secretly colluded to raise prices and keep them high?
Obviously you cant prevent that in An-Cap, but what do you do if its happening?
Just accept whatever they want to charge?  Drive three states away just to get a lower price on a gallon of milk?

Okay, I don't know why I bother because it seems you either can not or will not learn, but here's an answer to this point: If all the milk producers in 3 states who were selling milk at, say, 3.00 FRN/gal suddenly decided to charge 10.00, and NOBODY broke the embargo, then no, you wouldn't drive 3 states away for a gallon of milk, you'd rent a 10,000 gallon refrigerated tank truck, drive to a fourth state, fill it up at 3.00, drive it back home and sell your milk for 4.00.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Big.Swede on October 12, 2011, 03:36:33 am
Quote
you'd rent a 10,000 gallon refrigerated tank truck, drive to a fourth state, fill it up at 3.00, drive it back home and sell your milk for 4.00.

And make a handsome profit while doing a good deed and flipping the gits the proverbial bird.
While i might not be a 'beliver' in AnCap, this idea realy makes me grin. :)
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on October 12, 2011, 07:40:09 am
This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.


I propose a small correction to this; "Everybody who chooses to 'enforces' the ZAP".  In any given situation no one obligated to enforce it, although the aggrieved party is quite likely to if the aggression is significant (sufficiently "small" aggressions are likely to be overlooked in many cases).  Also, no third party has the right to intervene without the permission of the aggrieved party (or at least one of the parties, if there is more than one) -- in an "emergency" one might well intervene before getting such permission, but it that permission is not subsequently given, the one intervening may have to compensate anyone harmed by the intervention.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Killydd on October 12, 2011, 11:31:39 am
I have seen this example [of Somalia] given frequently in a variety of venues; unfortunately, it is a poor example.
I'd have to say that you're right:  The problem is that this is not your perfect AnCap, but rather what happens once people with some greed and power get their hands on it.  It doesn't matter too much where the funding comes from, as long as it's sufficient fora group of people to decide to enforce their will on another group.  How do you think the concept of a government got started in the first place?  It doesn't matter that most people are willing to live peacefully and with respect for eachother, as long as there's a few that are willing to take what they want by force.

The error here is in assuming that there is some "perfect" AnCap structure.  Utopia is not an option, and AnCap advocates repeat this almost ad nauseum.    Utopia is simply a "straw man" deployed by AnCap opponents to facilitate their otherwise weak arguments.

That being said, assume (an AnCap adherents do) that there are similar numbers of people who will act unethically in both AnCap and government-based societies.  Those individuals will seek out power and wealth in both cases and further they will engage in unethical behavior to gain it.  Those in government-based societies will tend, in large part, to be attracted to positions in (or close to) government, as (a) government is a nexus of power and wealth, and (b) the tools of government (specifically the license to threaten and/or use force) make it both easier and less obvious to take act unethically.   Further, as that power is gathered, one use will be to support those sympathetic to that approach, which means even more individuals who accept (and likely engage in)  the unethical uses of power.

Compare this to an AnCap society.  The unethical individuals in these societies will have a much wiser set of targets to attempt to infiltrate.  They may succeed to some degree; however, their unethical actions will be more difficult to camouflage as they look far less like acceptable behavior.  Further, since the points at which they attempt to gain such influence will be more diffuse, and it will be much more difficult for a "critical mass" of similar individuals to gather significant power.  That diffusion reduces both their ability to do so safely (since they will have far less insulation), and the tools for disempowering them will be greater, since those who object can simply avoid doing business with them, instead relying on their more ethical competitors.  Even should they be able to cobble together a monopoly, they will still be hampered by others entering the market at competitors and thus break the monopoly (or at least keep them from being "egregiously" unethical).

In both cases, of course, these unethical individuals may seek to use violent force.  In the government model, the use of such force may be camouflaged by the idea that the government has the sole authority to use such force -- a fact that the unethical will use to their advantage.  In the AnCap model, the use of such force will be met with the use of violent force in response -- a fact that will be well-known to those deciding to initiate it, and one which (without being able to fleece taxpayers to pay for or to give tacit support to) will be quite expensive to maintain.



One thing that does keep the government from being as bad as this would imply:  It also attracts ethical people that wish to aid, by providing a power structure they can do this from.  Sadly, it is only existing people that limit which of thes is more likely to achieve power.  Once corruption has set in, it needs a virtual revolution to clean it most of the way out again.  Then again, I suppose I'm just cynical enough to believe that no government form or lack thereof works anywhere near as well as its proponents believe. 
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on October 13, 2011, 12:57:45 pm
This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.

Quote
Also, how do you prevent collusion among companies?  It has been said that you just quit using one company and go their competitor.
But, what if all the companies in your three state region (would you really drive 3 states away to avoid high prices?) in one industry, say dairy products, had secretly colluded to raise prices and keep them high?
Obviously you cant prevent that in An-Cap, but what do you do if its happening?
Just accept whatever they want to charge?  Drive three states away just to get a lower price on a gallon of milk?

Okay, I don't know why I bother because it seems you either can not or will not learn, but here's an answer to this point: If all the milk producers in 3 states who were selling milk at, say, 3.00 FRN/gal suddenly decided to charge 10.00, and NOBODY broke the embargo, then no, you wouldn't drive 3 states away for a gallon of milk, you'd rent a 10,000 gallon refrigerated tank truck, drive to a fourth state, fill it up at 3.00, drive it back home and sell your milk for 4.00.

I keep forgetting that An-Cappers have no life.  In an AnCap society, no-one has a family to take care, no-one is expected to go to work and stay their all day performing the work they are paid for; no AnCapper has to worry about money, or anything a person in today's society has to worry about.
Like bringing home enough money (or barterable goods) to pay the rent/mortgage(oops, those dont exist, sorry), buy food, pay the bills, pay for medical treatments when necessary, have fun, spend time with family/friends.
You know, the stuff that makes up most peoples lives.

I'm sure you could rent a truck and go buy milk and the re-sell it, but what happens when you run out?
Do you go buy more?  Sounds like you are starting up a business; hope you can stomach the attendant costs of that business.

What do you do when your supplier raises your prices?  At some point it becomes un-economical to travel 3 states away looking for the lowest priced milk you can buy in bulk.

And what happens when you arrive with your tanker, only to find no-one wants to give up that much of their milk?
It is such a glib response that I can tell you did not think it through.

Eventually the colluding dairy farmers will attempt to intervene(or maybe not...)
If they do, how do you protect your tanker truck of milk from them?  Or perhaps from the guys they've hired to keep you from your deliveries.

Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business; in a lawless society like AnCap, whats to keep your areas dairy farmers from doing the same thing?  (Granted, they probably wouldnt; buy they might hire someone.)
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on October 13, 2011, 01:04:06 pm
This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.


I propose a small correction to this; "Everybody who chooses to 'enforces' the ZAP".  In any given situation no one obligated to enforce it, although the aggrieved party is quite likely to if the aggression is significant (sufficiently "small" aggressions are likely to be overlooked in many cases).  Also, no third party has the right to intervene without the permission of the aggrieved party (or at least one of the parties, if there is more than one) -- in an "emergency" one might well intervene before getting such permission, but it that permission is not subsequently given, the one intervening may have to compensate anyone harmed by the intervention.

Ah, I see; no "Good Samaritan" or "hold harmless" rules.  So if I decide to aid a stranger who is obviously in distress, and who does not subsequently give me permission (of forgiveness) can then demand that I pay for any help I gave him.

Wonderful.  There goes your "milk of human kindness".  Most people will think, "if I intervene, I can be held responsible for any unfavorable outcome from either side.  And since one side has to lose, the loser can take me to court for intervention.   Hmmm... I'll just let them sort it out."

Wouldnt want to live there.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on October 13, 2011, 01:49:00 pm
Ah, I see; no "Good Samaritan" or "hold harmless" rules.  So if I decide to aid a stranger who is obviously in distress, and who does not subsequently give me permission (of forgiveness) can then demand that I pay for any help I gave him.

Wonderful.  There goes your "milk of human kindness".  Most people will think, "if I intervene, I can be held responsible for any unfavorable outcome from either side.  And since one side has to lose, the loser can take me to court for intervention.   Hmmm... I'll just let them sort it out."

Wouldnt want to live there.

ContraryGuy:

Can you possibly quit being such an idiot for a few minutes?  If the person who "is in obvious distress" does not want some supposed "help", then any such "help" that causes damage must be answered for.   You shoot the guy you think is robbing a woman -- but in fact is her boyfriend, showing her how to hold her purse so that it isn't easily taken -- and you have to pay for the medical care, lost wages, etc.  You don't get off free because you thought you were doing the right thing.  You don't get to do damage and contend it was for their own good -- you don't get to make that judgement for others, period.  Allowing otherwise is reward bullies for bullying.

If you want to help someone, all you have to do is ask and get permission first.  If it's a rare case of an emergency (at least as perceived by you) you man act, but you may have to pay for any damage you caused if you were wrong -- if you're not a total nit-wit, you will try to help while causing as little damage as you can (to minimize your own risk).  It's something a 6 year old child could understand -- why are you congenitally unable or unwilling to see that?

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: spudit on October 13, 2011, 03:32:07 pm
Ask first? How?

This happened last month, a boat dragged it's anchor and I went out in my kayak and secured it to an anchored log boom. Later a friend and I towed it back to a safe place with his big boat. Then the owner's wife was hysterically happy with us and promised us big chunks of salmon. Mmmm Salmon.

Should we have waited until asked then picked up the potentially splintered bits off some beach? Should she be held liable because due to some bizare accidents, I fell in? No harm done. Sure glad the orcas had just moved on though.

Note the same thing happened to MY boat a few months earlier and some one did much the same for me.

Call it karma maybe but it is good to do good.  At least it is where I live
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: NeitherRuleNorBeRuled on October 13, 2011, 03:59:28 pm
Ask first? How?

Well, it is quite common for the person needing the presumed help to be around or easily available.  If you have the opportunity, you should ask -- it saves misunderstandings.  In this case, if the boat had some sort of registration visible, you could perhaps have used that to attempt to contact the owner and get permission before starting.

Quote
This happened last month, a boat dragged it's anchor and I went out in my kayak and secured it to an anchored log boom. Later a friend and I towed it back to a safe place with his big boat. Then the owner's wife was hysterically happy with us and promised us big chunks of salmon. Mmmm Salmon.

Should we have waited until asked then picked up the potentially splintered bits off some beach? Should she be held liable because due to some bizare accidents, I fell in? No harm done. Sure glad the orcas had just moved on though.

Note the same thing happened to oMY boat a few months earlier and some one did much the same for me.

This sounds like a common occurrence and a fairly standard practice, so the risk was minimal.  However, if you had misinterpreted the situation or handled it badly (perhaps the anchor hadn't dragged, but the boat was anchored while the owner was diving for something that had been lost, and moving the boat would strand them, or in your attempts to secure the boat you caused it to sink) the owner could legitimately claim a tort.  Hearing that you were just trying to help might convince the owner to overlook it, or cut a deal for something less than the full cost, but they wouldn't be obligated to.  Just because you think some action would help someone doesn't mean they will consider the action to be helpful.

Quote
Call it karma maybe but it is good to do good.  At least it is where I live

It is indeed good to do good; however, "good" is in the eye of the beholder.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Big.Swede on October 13, 2011, 10:59:16 pm
Concidering the above posts...

There is the whole "being a good neighbor" thing too. The thing that should stop 90% of all frivolous (sp?) lawsuits in the world and make people settle their differences outside court, possibly across a cup of coffe.

Unfortunatly, these things called lawyers got their claws in the system and has convinced people that they can get money for free.

*Points at the prime example of what happened at the end of the TV show Top Gearīs travel through the southern US states and ended in New Orleans*

For some odd reason, people who try and pry money out of someone for busting their ribs while performing the Heimlich maneuver and saving their life tend to get very little help from any others on the future.

So either you are a "good neighbor" about it and come to terms, or you try and convince not only an arbitrator but also the rest of the community that you are not being a stingy git for demanding compensation for the other guy saving you from choking to death on a fishbone.

Excpetions will occure ofcourse.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on October 14, 2011, 08:03:29 pm
Quote
One thing that does keep the government from being as bad as this would imply:  It also attracts ethical people that wish to aid, by providing a power structure they can do this from.
Quote
There is the whole "being a good neighbor" thing too.

Had a bit of a discussion in RL, about most cops being decent humans despite being more able to "get away" with sh*t than us commoners.  I suggested (then as here) that this had implications for the behavior of us ordinary cusses should we find ourselves in a similar (relative) absence of constraint.  My conversational partner (CP) proposed the burden of responsibility as a constraint on bad behavior, and it might be so.  I'd like to offer here an alternative, one that I have wtinessed personally, and for which there is a very similar, and very well-documented analog.

It goes now by the name of "the Pygmalion effect".  Teachers given students labeled as bright or dull (heck, even student researchers given rats labeled "maze-clever" or "maze-dull") find that their subjects live up -- or down -- to expectations.  I suggest that the relative lack of corrupt cops is due to this expectation, in policemen, of "better" behavior.

It follows that us ordinary ornery cusses, just by having restraining authority imposed to make us "better", behave on the whole rather worse than we would if we were assumed to be good.

And then we're told that that's just how we "are".

Hmm.

I submit that those who say we need government because our fellow men can't be trusted, reap what their expectations have sown -- that you actively contribute to the turpitude of your fellows, by expecting them (us) to be thus.  Sure it would take a saint to hear his inner angels over the social Teachings that say he's only not a criminal because he fears The Man.

What if we were all appointed as cops?  What if schooling involved police training (especially police training back in the day when it had more to do with defusing situations, and less with how to kill quickly & efficiently) so we were all qualified police?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Bob G on October 15, 2011, 11:04:26 am
This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.

Quote
Also, how do you prevent collusion among companies?  It has been said that you just quit using one company and go their competitor.
But, what if all the companies in your three state region (would you really drive 3 states away to avoid high prices?) in one industry, say dairy products, had secretly colluded to raise prices and keep them high?
Obviously you cant prevent that in An-Cap, but what do you do if its happening?
Just accept whatever they want to charge?  Drive three states away just to get a lower price on a gallon of milk?

Okay, I don't know why I bother because it seems you either can not or will not learn, but here's an answer to this point: If all the milk producers in 3 states who were selling milk at, say, 3.00 FRN/gal suddenly decided to charge 10.00, and NOBODY broke the embargo, then no, you wouldn't drive 3 states away for a gallon of milk, you'd rent a 10,000 gallon refrigerated tank truck, drive to a fourth state, fill it up at 3.00, drive it back home and sell your milk for 4.00.

I keep forgetting that An-Cappers have no life.  In an AnCap society, no-one has a family to take care, no-one is expected to go to work and stay their all day performing the work they are paid for; no AnCapper has to worry about money, or anything a person in today's society has to worry about.
Like bringing home enough money (or barterable goods) to pay the rent/mortgage(oops, those dont exist, sorry), buy food, pay the bills, pay for medical treatments when necessary, have fun, spend time with family/friends.
You know, the stuff that makes up most peoples lives.

I'm sure you could rent a truck and go buy milk and the re-sell it, but what happens when you run out?
Do you go buy more?  Sounds like you are starting up a business; hope you can stomach the attendant costs of that business.

Yes, exactly. You go buy more and do it again. If conditions persist making this activity possible, then what's so bad about starting up a business to do so? That would kind of take care of your paying the rent/feeding the kids quibble, wouldn't it? What costs? The cost of leasing the truck? 300 ferns, 800 with a driver if you don't want to take the time off from your day job to do the driving yourself (I checked. Of course, in an AnCap world, those costs would likely be significantly lower.). Cost of fuel. Cost of driving on someones' roadway. Cost of insurance, if you choose (If the road owner doesn't require you to be insured on hisher roadway, and if those costs aren't incorporated in the cost of leasing the truck). Figure 1500-2000 ferns for the trip, depending on if you make the drive yourself (probably slightly less in Rhode Island, probably a bit more in, say, Texas, due to the distances and attendant fuel costs involved). If, as in my scenario, you're grossing 10,000 ferns a trip, even you can see that that's 8,000 profit. Do that once a week, and you might even be able to quit your day job and spend MORE time with your friends and family which addresses another of your quibbles.

Quote
What do you do when your supplier raises your prices?  At some point it becomes un-economical to travel 3 states away looking for the lowest priced milk you can buy in bulk.

And what happens when you arrive with your tanker, only to find no-one wants to give up that much of their milk?
It is such a glib response that I can tell you did not think it through.

Quibble, quibble, quibble . . .

I gave you AN answer to your question. If you don't like that one, drink goats milk. Drink soy milk. Pay 10 ferns for a gallon of milk. Stop drinking milk. I don't drink milk*; I DON'T CARE!!! So kwitcherbitchin! Find your own answer!!!

Quote
Eventually the colluding dairy farmers will attempt to intervene(or maybe not...)
If they do, how do you protect your tanker truck of milk from them?  Or perhaps from the guys they've hired to keep you from your deliveries.

Quibble, quibble, quibble . . .
ZAP, ZAP, ZAP

Quote
Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business

Yeah, providing their product in the most efficient way, and therefore at the lowest cost possible, to their customers. Oooh, Scary! NOT! (Unless you're one of Standard Oil's competitors, that is.)

Quote
In a lawless society like AnCap, whats to keep your areas dairy farmers from doing the same thing?  (Granted, they probably wouldnt; buy they might hire someone.)

The ZAP, and the attendant structures appendant to it.

*For purposes of illustration - actually, I do drink milk, at least in my tea.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: quadibloc on October 16, 2011, 09:47:14 am
Quote
Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business

Yeah, providing their product in the most efficient way, and therefore at the lowest cost possible, to their customers. Oooh, Scary! NOT! (Unless you're one of Standard Oil's competitors, that is.)
I do vaguely remember having read claims that Standard Oil did genuinely do "nefarious and unsavory" things - such as requiring firms supplying them with transportation not to carry their competitor's products, either at all, or at least on the same terms, as a condition of receiving their business.

They may have achieved market dominance honestly, but then they abused it to obtain a near-monopoly. Of course, asking for a bulk discount isn't always an act of corruption either...
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Frank B. on October 16, 2011, 11:09:19 am
Quote
Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business

Yeah, providing their product in the most efficient way, and therefore at the lowest cost possible, to their customers. Oooh, Scary! NOT! (Unless you're one of Standard Oil's competitors, that is.)
I do vaguely remember having read claims that Standard Oil did genuinely do "nefarious and unsavory" things - such as requiring firms supplying them with transportation not to carry their competitor's products, either at all, or at least on the same terms, as a condition of receiving their business.

They may have achieved market dominance honestly, but then they abused it to obtain a near-monopoly. Of course, asking for a bulk discount isn't always an act of corruption either...

But, at the end of the day, so what?  The price of oil was at it's all time lowest while SO was making deals like that.  With their monopoly "secured" and the inevitable price increases began, new competitors were entering the market. By the time antitrust had passed there were nearly 30 competing oil companies in the market again. Markets are constantly changing.  Today's "great deal" is tomorrow's "boat anchor".
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Bob G on October 16, 2011, 11:34:41 am
Quote
Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business

Yeah, providing their product in the most efficient way, and therefore at the lowest cost possible, to their customers. Oooh, Scary! NOT! (Unless you're one of Standard Oil's competitors, that is.)
I do vaguely remember having read claims that Standard Oil did genuinely do "nefarious and unsavory" things - such as requiring firms supplying them with transportation not to carry their competitor's products, either at all, or at least on the same terms, as a condition of receiving their business.

Indeed. Don't forget, these 'claims' were made by Standard Oil's competitors, who used these claims as an excuse to get the government to beat up on Standard Oil. Now who was being 'nefarious and unsavory'?

Quote
They may have achieved market dominance honestly, but then they abused it to obtain a near-monopoly. Of course, asking for a bulk discount isn't always an act of corruption either...

Indeed, a sharp business practice such as negotiating an exclusive service contract or, as you say, a bulk discount may makes it difficult for one's competitors to do business. This still does not equate to holding a gun to one's vendors' or competitors' heads. That was done by the competitors when they enlisted government aid to 'break up' Standard Oil.

And don't imagine that this kind of crap was relegated to the late 19th century, either. Look at what happened to the Bell system in the 1980s and to Microsoft in the 1990s. Not to mention the call for 'net neutrality' today.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Bob G on October 16, 2011, 12:00:27 pm
This leads me to another question I have of the An-Caps, who enforces the ZAP?

EVERYBODY 'enforces' the ZAP. Your question illustrates the poverty of your worldview, in that you look for someone to wield the big stick to make everything alright. In AnCap, it's YOUR responsibility to help make the society work.

I propose a small correction to this; "Everybody who chooses to 'enforces' the ZAP". . .

I accept the friendly amendment. Indeed, I was struggling to come to that point. I should have said that it's each individual's *responsibility* to help 'enforce' the ZAP. If one chooses not to do so, then one ought not to be surprised if others look upon one with disapprobation and are less likely to assist one in countering aggression in the future.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on October 16, 2011, 05:34:14 pm
Quote
Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business

Yeah, providing their product in the most efficient way, and therefore at the lowest cost possible, to their customers. Oooh, Scary! NOT! (Unless you're one of Standard Oil's competitors, that is.)
I do vaguely remember having read claims that Standard Oil did genuinely do "nefarious and unsavory" things - such as requiring firms supplying them with transportation not to carry their competitor's products, either at all, or at least on the same terms, as a condition of receiving their business.

Indeed. Don't forget, these 'claims' were made by Standard Oil's competitors, who used these claims as an excuse to get the government to beat up on Standard Oil. Now who was being 'nefarious and unsavory'?

Quote
They may have achieved market dominance honestly, but then they abused it to obtain a near-monopoly. Of course, asking for a bulk discount isn't always an act of corruption either...

Indeed, a sharp business practice such as negotiating an exclusive service contract or, as you say, a bulk discount may make it difficult for one's competitors to do business. This still does not equate to holding a gun to one's vendors' or competitors' heads. That was done by the competitors when they enlisted government aid to 'break up' Standard Oil.

And don't imagine that this kind of crap was relegated to the late 19th century, either. Look at what happened to the Bell system in the 1980s and to Microsoft in the 1990s. Not to mention the call for 'net neutrality' today.

So you have no problem with monopolies?  What happens if the company decides to violate the ZAP ti stay a monopoly?

I am not looking for one person to be the Big Stick that keeps everyone in line.  It is a given that not all people will adhere to the ZAP; that is why the exemption for self-defense of defense in aid of another.
But I keep coming to the question of Organized Crime.  Since no-one has said there would be no such thing in AnCap, I must assume there would be.  Not all people are or wish to be honest workers.
While one or two people can deal effectively with one or two criminals, what about the criminals who attack you when you are vulnerable?  After all, "you've gotta sleep some time."

I think it all comes down to money.  Will it cost more for Private Security Co. protection or to just pay for "protection."
Of course, for round the clock security, it'll cost you. and it'll cost more if you are honest about what you are paying for protection against.
Sounds like it would be more cost-effective to pay off the crime gang.  Unless you have to pay off several.

Buildings burn, and that volunteer fire department might have been paid to "show up late".
Too bad, you should have paid your "protection".
Its a shame that Private Security Co. couldnt save your business.  And they regret to inform you that they dont give refunds.

Should have paid your "protection."

Too bad you cant take the local crime gang to an arbitrator.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on October 16, 2011, 09:02:47 pm
Quote
So you have no problem with monopolies?

Say rather that "monopoly" does not equal "uttermost evil".  It doesn't have to be a bad thing.  A monopoly on force, aka government, doesn't have to be a bad thing.  Oh, wait, yes it does.  Still, that's 'cos a monopoly on force (and defense of my person) is qualitatively different than a monopoly on milk.

Quote
What happens if the company decides to violate the ZAP ti stay a monopoly?

Then the transgressed-upon defend themselves.  Duh.  The "A" stands for "aggression" -- ZAP prohibits the initiation of harm.  It puts no restrictions on response to aggression (though seriously out-of-proportion retaliation will only be undertaken by the terminally stupid).

Quote
what about the criminals who attack you when you are vulnerable?

You mean, like cops who plant evidence (http://tinyurl.com/6kkdu2k)?

OK, about gangs -- lessee.
There are more of "us" than of "them".  We discuss possible strategies well in advance of need and, if/when need arises, we form ad hoc response teams of whatever sort our community fancies.  Maybe we can get rid of them the way India drove out the Brits:  total (or near-total) noncooperation.

My community, at least, will follow the dictum "pain delayed is pain multiplied" and not wait till gangs get unmanageably large.


Dude, I ask just one thing, PUHLEASE:  stop asking for perfection.  "Well, what about this problem???" as if we ever said everything would be milk&honey in an AnCap.  Get this:  there will of course be problems -- and in an AnCap (even a ZAP one) we'll all of us have all the options our creative little minds can think of in order to solve them INSTEAD OF rote responses enshrined in <reverential whisper> law that, further, are allowed only by duly-anointed responders.

I ain't looking to live in a community of no problems.  I'm looking to live where creativity hasn't been shut down -- systematically shut down.  I tossed out a (just one) suggestion above but the real issue is:

IN AN ANCAP WE CAN DEAL WITH GANGS HOWEVER WE CAN IMAGINE.
UNDER A GOVERNMENT WE HAVE TO SIT BY PASSIVELY AND HOPE THE COPS CAN AND WILL DO "SOMETHING".

If you'd really rather live hoping for a shining knight to rescue you, well, there's no accounting for taste.  Just don't go insisting I join you.


Finally, can you take your own medicine?  Can you tell me how I'm supposed to protect myself from my "representatives" who send my protection money (taxes -- if you don't pay up, you get hurt) to bail out improvident bankers and tell me so sorry my house burned down or I got raped or my car broke an axle because the funds weren't there for fire or police or roads?  "Voting" them out of office is not an option when nobody knows who tallies ("tallies") the votes.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on October 16, 2011, 09:12:40 pm
Just now I wrote, easily enough, that "we" would "discuss" in advance and then "we" would form ad-hoc teams (meaning that as an example; we might also all act together).  I said that "my community" would hold a certain view.

I'm thinking that us AnCap types are community-active types; at least, it seems to me that the government-apologists write as if they see themselves as all alone, communityless, neighborless.

Is that what living under government has done to you -- robbed you of your connection to the people around you?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on October 19, 2011, 01:04:37 am
Just now I wrote, easily enough, that "we" would "discuss" in advance and then "we" would form ad-hoc teams (meaning that as an example; we might also all act together).  I said that "my community" would hold a certain view.

I'm thinking that us AnCap types are community-active types; at least, it seems to me that the government-apologists write as if they see themselves as all alone, communityless, neighborless.

Is that what living under government has done to you -- robbed you of your connection to the people around you?

I think my neighbors would take exception to that.  I think, if it is not too self-aggrandizing, that I have made my portion of my neighborhood a better place in the 5 years I've lived here.
Because of being neighborly.

Just recently, my mom displaced her hip.  Once the aid car had gone (and they didnt ask for my Visa card before coming) and I was closing up the house to follow her to the hospital, my across the street neighbor cam over and yelled into the house.
When i said hello, she said "i just wanted to make sure the house wasnt left open with no-one in it."
See, I have neighbors who concern themselves with my well-being just like I would for them.

So maybe I'm not as alone as you envision.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on October 19, 2011, 06:12:36 am
Quote
So maybe I'm not as alone as you envision.

Maybe not.  It was only an impression and one I'm honestly happy to have dispelled.  I hope your mom is doing well.


Now that I've got your attention, though -- have I answered your question about "How would an AnCap society handle X?" (Answer:  according to their best invention certainly helped by and most certainly not limited to precedents.)
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on October 20, 2011, 08:57:49 am
Quote
So maybe I'm not as alone as you envision.

Maybe not.  It was only an impression and one I'm honestly happy to have dispelled.  I hope your mom is doing well.


Now that I've got your attention, though -- have I answered your question about "How would an AnCap society handle X?" (Answer:  according to their best invention certainly helped by and most certainly not limited to precedents.)

Yes, you have.

Until next time...
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: macsnafu on October 20, 2011, 01:37:47 pm
Quote
Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business

Yeah, providing their product in the most efficient way, and therefore at the lowest cost possible, to their customers. Oooh, Scary! NOT! (Unless you're one of Standard Oil's competitors, that is.)
I do vaguely remember having read claims that Standard Oil did genuinely do "nefarious and unsavory" things - such as requiring firms supplying them with transportation not to carry their competitor's products, either at all, or at least on the same terms, as a condition of receiving their business.

They may have achieved market dominance honestly, but then they abused it to obtain a near-monopoly. Of course, asking for a bulk discount isn't always an act of corruption either...

Near monopoly?  At its peak, Standard Oil had about 80% of the business (IIRC), and wasn't able to maintain that for very long.   As for exclusivity deals, their transportation firms could have said no, and/or SO's competitors could work with other transportation firms.  As long as there are no coercive restrictions that prevented competition, SO could never reach a total monopoly, or stop their competitors from competing.  It was the anti-trust laws that were later passed that gave government the power to interfere in business decisions and choose winners and losers, and thus actually making competition more difficult, not less difficult.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on October 21, 2011, 03:41:16 am
Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business;

Standard oil, by rapidly advancing the technology of refining, lowered the price further and faster than any of its competitors could, which is what caused it to be so hated that its competitors called in the government on it.

However unsavory its methods may have been, the primary effect of these eeevil methods was a continual, dramatic, extraordinary, and rapid drop in the price of petrol.

Perhaps wise government intervention, saving us from the eeevil Standard Oil Monopoly could have made petrol drop even faster, yet oddly, strange to report, it did not.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Bob G on October 21, 2011, 06:30:41 am
However unsavory its methods may have been, the primary effect of these eeevil methods was a continual, dramatic, extraordinary, and rapid drop in the price of petrol.

Indeed, kerosene became so much cheaper than whale oil for industrial and domestic lighting purposes that it brought the Yankee whaling industry to a virtual stop. Standard Oil may well have saved the whales.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: macsnafu on October 21, 2011, 08:37:00 am
Standard Oil Company used lots of nefarious and unsavory tactics to drive their competitors out of business;

Standard oil, by rapidly advancing the technology of refining, lowered the price further and faster than any of its competitors could, which is what caused it to be so hated that its competitors called in the government on it.

However unsavory its methods may have been, the primary effect of these eeevil methods was a continual, dramatic, extraordinary, and rapid drop in the price of petrol.

Yep.  Standard not only captured much of the market with their ability to drop the price, they created a whole new market of consumers who previously could not afford to buy the oil at the higher price.   How evil!
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: bjdotson on October 24, 2011, 08:37:03 am
Quote
And don't imagine that this kind of crap was relegated to the late 19th century, either. Look at what happened to the Bell system in the 1980s and to Microsoft in the 1990s. Not to mention the call for 'net neutrality' today.

Comparing Bell and Microsoft is apples to oranges. Bell was a government enforced monopoly with the justification that you couldn't have everybody stringing wires, so the government picked a winner and killed off all of the competition. Due to advances in technology (microwave transmission of telephone signals) The monopoly was challenged in court and Ma Bell was forced to end its monopoly and break up. This suit was bought by a competitor.

Microsoft was considered a de facto monopoly because it had 90% of the business. In other words, the government didn't like the fact that they were too successful at what they did. Microsoft was a winner and the government didn't like that (they are the only ones "empowered" to pick winners.)
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Frank B. on October 24, 2011, 04:08:04 pm
Quote
And don't imagine that this kind of crap was relegated to the late 19th century, either. Look at what happened to the Bell system in the 1980s and to Microsoft in the 1990s. Not to mention the call for 'net neutrality' today.

Comparing Bell and Microsoft is apples to oranges. Bell was a government enforced monopoly with the justification that you couldn't have everybody stringing wires, so the government picked a winner and killed off all of the competition. Due to advances in technology (microwave transmission of telephone signals) The monopoly was challenged in court and Ma Bell was forced to end its monopoly and break up. This suit was bought by a competitor.

Microsoft was considered a de facto monopoly because it had 90% of the business. In other words, the government didn't like the fact that they were too successful at what they did. Microsoft was a winner and the government didn't like that (they are the only ones "empowered" to pick winners.)

Microsoft's direct software competitors (OS, apps, etc) filed many complaints with the FTC on "unfair" trade practices by MS, on the heals of the "look and feel" legal battle of the late 80s.  Justice took the complaints up under clayton anti-trust.  So, the comparison to Standard Oil in the context of this thread is more germane.  CPM could have been the OS of PCs rather than MS-DOS if the CPM execs hadn't blown off a meeting with IBM.  Talk about not hearing opportunity knocking.  :P

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on October 26, 2011, 06:05:42 pm
Quote
And don't imagine that this kind of crap was relegated to the late 19th century, either. Look at what happened to the Bell system in the 1980s and to Microsoft in the 1990s. Not to mention the call for 'net neutrality' today.

Comparing Bell and Microsoft is apples to oranges. Bell was a government enforced monopoly with the justification that you couldn't have everybody stringing wires, so the government picked a winner and killed off all of the competition. Due to advances in technology (microwave transmission of telephone signals) The monopoly was challenged in court and Ma Bell was forced to end its monopoly and break up. This suit was bought by a competitor.

Microsoft was considered a de facto monopoly because it had 90% of the business. In other words, the government didn't like the fact that they were too successful at what they did. Microsoft was a winner and the government didn't like that (they are the only ones "empowered" to pick winners.)

You might like to think so, but no.  Microsoft's competitors convinced the government to bring suit for Microsoft's business practices, not their near-monopoly of the operating system market.
In short, for the way they kept their monopoly, not for being a monopoly.

While they weren't Standard Oil, they were quite Standard Oil-ish.  They were also quite Coca-Cola-ish.
I realize that AnCappers believe that no capitalist can commit any wrong, but they can.  And they have.

This brings me to my next question about AnCap(which I am sure will be ignored or evaded- Hi Sandy!):  What do AnCappers like best?  Liberty or Capitalism?

Most of the discussion has been around Liberty, so I want to ask about Capitalism.
Surely AnCappers dont want modern capitalists to be anarchistic, do you?

No, I think what you want is for Capitalists to behave themselves and adhere to the ZAP in their business dealings as well as their interpersonal relationships.

Of course, capitalists (notice the small c) already do, its Big C ones that have to be reined in.

Lets starts by saying that capitalism is not bad, or evil or anything.  It cant be; its just there.
Its all in how it is employed.
Little c capitalism is what makes the world go 'round; always has, and as long as people are willing to exchange something that is only indirectly valuable(money) for something that is directly valuable(goods or services), always will.

Big C capitalism is where people try to make money off of the transfer of money or other capital.  This starts out as a valuable service, but once the ability to make uncountable (and unspendable) amounts of money arises, the people involved fall prey to the temptation of greed and start making money for themselves instead of remembering what the purpose of capitalism (to make sure all parts of the market that need money get the money it needs) is.

In an anarchy, the people with the money ('the rich') will go towards the Big C, while the workers mover around in the little c, much as they have always done.

But because the supply of value is finite, once the people who control the money have all of it, what happens to the people below them?  Barter?

There is an infinite supply of barter, but money is a much better store of value.  (In this case, 'money' includes refined precious metals such as gold.)

So, how does an anarchy, where there is no authority, moderate the worst excesses of human nature?
But only as it applies to capitalism, and business.  Lets not get too broad.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on October 26, 2011, 07:06:39 pm
Quote
And don't imagine that this kind of crap was relegated to the late 19th century, either. Look at what happened to the Bell system in the 1980s and to Microsoft in the 1990s. Not to mention the call for 'net neutrality' today.

Obviously you dont understand the purpose of 'net neutrality'.  Originally the phone companies existed under "common carrier" regulations that said "they may be your wires, but if someone wants to pay you to use them, you gotta let them."
Naturally, after the internet exploded and everyone (except the phone companies) were making barrels of money, the phone companies were able to buy their way to changing those regs so they could boot everyone off their wires and make money themselves.

Network neutrality says that any internet service provider must allow anyone who wants to pay to move their signal, their bits, their websites, etc across whatever wires necessary to get from server to customer.
ISP's object to accepting paying customers because they are afraid of the "kleenex" effect.
In computer-ese, it called "being a dumb pipe". 
When was the last time you went to www.verizon.net as a destination?  Or Time-Warner?
I wont include Comcast, because they have worked hard on being a destination website.

Critics of ISP's intended policies point out the ridiculousness of those policies:  Forcing Google to pay carriage fees to every company across whose wires the google website must pass to get from Google to your computer.
One CEO even said that the $15 billion a year that Google pays in carriage fees is equivalent to "free ride" across his company's wires.

Only in CEO-land does $15 billion dollars equal $0 dollars.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on October 26, 2011, 09:25:11 pm
Obviously you dont understand the purpose of 'net neutrality'.  Originally the phone companies existed under "common carrier" regulations that said "they may be your wires, but if someone wants to pay you to use them, you gotta let them."
Naturally, after the internet exploded and everyone (except the phone companies) were making barrels of money, the phone companies were able to buy their way to changing those regs so they could boot everyone off their wires and make money themselves.

Net Neutrality was not a law, but a custom, existing practice.  Anyone can violate this practice at any time for any reason if they so choose, but when they do so, it pisses off their customers and peers.

State regulation to supposedly enforce that custom, in fact enforces state control of the internet, and fails to enforce that custom.

Existing violations of net neutrality have been minor, and for the most part, have been remedied by peer and customer pressure.  State intervention to supposedly enforce net neutrality is not needed, and when applied, is applied in ways that in fact undermine net neutrality.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on October 27, 2011, 06:12:35 am
Quote
Big C capitalism is where people try to make money off of the transfer of money or other capital.

Does this refer to where A makes money by letting B use some of A's money for a fee aka interest on a loan?  I'm just looking to make sure I've got your question straight.  Answering a question that wasn't asked can sometimes be amusing, but it doesn't, um, answer.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: macsnafu on October 27, 2011, 10:24:14 am
While they weren't Standard Oil, they were quite Standard Oil-ish.  They were also quite Coca-Cola-ish.
I realize that AnCappers believe that no capitalist can commit any wrong, but they can.  And they have.

Lets starts by saying that capitalism is not bad, or evil or anything.  It cant be; its just there.
Its all in how it is employed.
Little c capitalism is what makes the world go 'round; always has, and as long as people are willing to exchange something that is only indirectly valuable(money) for something that is directly valuable(goods or services), always will.

Big C capitalism is where people try to make money off of the transfer of money or other capital.  This starts out as a valuable service, but once the ability to make uncountable (and unspendable) amounts of money arises, the people involved fall prey to the temptation of greed and start making money for themselves instead of remembering what the purpose of capitalism (to make sure all parts of the market that need money get the money it needs) is.

But because the supply of value is finite, once the people who control the money have all of it, what happens to the people below them?  Barter?

There is an infinite supply of barter, but money is a much better store of value.  (In this case, 'money' includes refined precious metals such as gold.)

So, how does an anarchy, where there is no authority, moderate the worst excesses of human nature?
But only as it applies to capitalism, and business.  Lets not get too broad.

I don't understand the premise.  How does the "transfer of money or other capital" lead to some people having ALL the money?  As long as voluntary exchanges occur, I don't see how this is even possible.

If, for some strange reason, somebody or some group somehow managed to corner the market on a particular currency, this is not a problem in anarchy, as people could simply switch to a different currency.  It's only when the production of money is monopolized (by the government, for example), where your premise makes any sense.

For that matter, it's only because government power is there to be abused that the alleged big "C" capitalists are able to utilize it for evil purposes.  I know, you think without government, they would simply be evil in a more direct way, but this overlooks the costs of using your own resources for evil purposes.  For a business, that's simply bad business.  Letting government do the dirty work for you is much more easier and cost effective than doing it directly, especially if your competitors have similar resources.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on October 28, 2011, 11:05:16 am
While they weren't Standard Oil, they were quite Standard Oil-ish.  They were also quite Coca-Cola-ish.
I realize that AnCappers believe that no capitalist can commit any wrong, but they can.  And they have.

Lets starts by saying that capitalism is not bad, or evil or anything.  It cant be; its just there.
Its all in how it is employed.
Little c capitalism is what makes the world go 'round; always has, and as long as people are willing to exchange something that is only indirectly valuable(money) for something that is directly valuable(goods or services), always will.

Big C capitalism is where people try to make money off of the transfer of money or other capital.  This starts out as a valuable service, but once the ability to make uncountable (and unspendable) amounts of money arises, the people involved fall prey to the temptation of greed and start making money for themselves instead of remembering what the purpose of capitalism (to make sure all parts of the market that need money get the money it needs) is.

But because the supply of value is finite, once the people who control the money have all of it, what happens to the people below them?  Barter?

There is an infinite supply of barter, but money is a much better store of value.  (In this case, 'money' includes refined precious metals such as gold.)

So, how does an anarchy, where there is no authority, moderate the worst excesses of human nature?
But only as it applies to capitalism, and business.  Lets not get too broad.

I don't understand the premise.  How does the "transfer of money or other capital" lead to some people having ALL the money?  As long as voluntary exchanges occur, I don't see how this is even possible.

If, for some strange reason, somebody or some group somehow managed to corner the market on a particular currency, this is not a problem in anarchy, as people could simply switch to a different currency.  It's only when the production of money is monopolized (by the government, for example), where your premise makes any sense.

For that matter, it's only because government power is there to be abused that the alleged big "C" capitalists are able to utilize it for evil purposes.  I know, you think without government, they would simply be evil in a more direct way, but this overlooks the costs of using your own resources for evil purposes.  For a business, that's simply bad business.  Letting government do the dirty work for you is much more easier and cost effective than doing it directly, especially if your competitors have similar resources.

Deregulation means getting govt overseers out of the way of business.  More de-regulation=less government.

I do wish some of you would pay more attention to the business pages...

Oh, I forgot, business reporters are in the pay of Big Govt and cant be trusted to relay the actual facts of the world.
And Fox News never lies, and always tells the truth...

Man, I wish some of you actually read anything about the real world at all... and not just libertarian tracts.

The financial meltdown happened because there was too little government oversight.
Before government regulations, there were financial panics every 10 to 15 years.
Do you want to live in an economic system where all your money is suddenly worthless every ten years or so?

As for the idea of "just switching to a different currency", you have no idea how terrible an idea that is.
Or how bad an idea it actually was.

I know I really havent answered your questions.  Its hard to get across the idea that businessmen dont always act in their own self-interest.  Modern Big C capitalists usually dont act in the best interest of the companies they manage.

In the last fiscal quarter, Goldman Sachs reported only its second quarterly loss.  It made record profits, but yet lost money.  How did they manage that?  Because they paid out more in salary and bonuses to the top executives than they had made in profit.
How is that in the best interest of the company?
The government didnt force them to give away all their profit, it merely said "you must document who you paid, when and how much."

Bank of America is firing 31,000 workers because the bank doesnt have enough business to pay them, but there is enough business to give senior executives $11 million dollars each in severance packages.

When you say "[banks] would simply be evil in a more direct way, but this overlooks the costs of using your own resources for evil purposes," I think you havent a glimmer of how the real world of finance and Big Business works.

Not all transfers of money are entirely voluntary.  Without taxes, you are still paying tribute to someone.  It doesnt have to be a warlord, or ganglord.
It could be a Protection Service, because the alternative is worse.
In an anarchy, do we all go back to well water and septic systems and hand cranked generators, or is there centralized water, sewer and power?
It may be an anarchy, but you still have bills to pay.

How some people end up with all the wealth is that they arrange things so that you willingly (if unknowingly) pay them.
They make money directly from purchases, loan, and fees for handling money.  
Wealthy people also make money from knowing things before you do, knowing things that are kept from you and from selling you things that they know will fail and they make money when it fails, because they have taken out insurance policies that only pay out when things fail.

I'm glad your idealism and naivete keeps you warm at night, but dont think for an instant that that how the real world works.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on October 28, 2011, 11:24:50 am
Quote
Big C capitalism is where people try to make money off of the transfer of money or other capital.

Does this refer to where A makes money by letting B use some of A's money for a fee aka interest on a loan?  I'm just looking to make sure I've got your question straight.  Answering a question that wasn't asked can sometimes be amusing, but it doesn't, um, answer.

Nope.  Thats simple interest.  I'm talking about where A sells B's loan to C for a profit.  C takes B's loan and combines it with D-M's loans and convinces N that this package makes a mighty-fine investment, with a defined percentage rate of return guaranteed by Q's insurance company.
If N agrees, (and why wouldnt he since the investment is backed by all those honest people repaying their loans with interest, and guaranteed by Q's reputable insurance policy?), then C gets a fee for bringing the two together.
C then goes on to sell the investment to R,S,T,U & V.  Making a fee every time.

What C hasnt told any of those investors is that H-M are deadbeats and most likely will never pay back their loans.
C has taken out an insurance policy with Z's insurance company against the high probability that the investment will fail.  Part of the insurance goes to pay off Q so that he will insur the investment even though he is informed of how likely it will fail, so Q is not out any money when he pays off the rate of return guarantee.

So C makes money out of every transaction and from an insurance policy against success.

If you think this is complicated, you should read about the real thing.  It will make your head swim.
The Wall Street risk takers even had quantum physicist created equations that showed why there was 0 risk in any of these investments, and how nothing could go wrong.

Because math is never wrong, right?

(and remember, all of the stuff was performed legally and aboveboard with full disclosure to all voluntary participants)
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on October 28, 2011, 01:47:46 pm
The financial meltdown happened because there was too little government oversight.

Odd then that most of the money was lost by quasi governmental entities, Fannie, Freddy, and the FHA.  Odd then that most of the money was pissed away on the supposed victims of redlining.  Odd then that the one and only bank that failed to make easy money loans, Beverly Hills Bank, was condemned by the regulators as racist.  Odd then that the two private banks that pissed away the most money, Countrywide and Washington Mutual, were the regulators favored pets and were famously over the top in extreme political correctness.

If the problem was too little regulation, odd then that all of this happened after Basel, an extraordinary explosion of regulation.  Glass-Steagall was seventeen pages.  Basel II, the source of all our financial woes, a system guaranteed to collapse, is so vast no one can say how large it is, other than that is is many thousands of pages over hundreds of documents.

Glass-Steagall is seventeen pages of relatively straight forward english.  Basel II is many thousands of pages of
incomprehensible gobbledy gook written by lobbyists and insiders.

Basel II is not the free market, but crony capitalism, and calls for more regulation are calls for more bailouts and more crony capitalism.

Read the CRA report on Beverly Hills Bank. http://www2.fdic.gov/crapes/2007/32069_071001.pdf (http://www2.fdic.gov/crapes/2007/32069_071001.pdf) Who had the power?
The nameless bureacrats enforcing the CRA, or the bankers?


Under Basel, the regulators guide the banks to invest "safely", which is to say, politically correctly

I was right at ground zero where the money was pissed away:  Sunnyvale, California, 2005, 2006.

Seemingly every loan that was made, was around seven hundred thousand dollars to well  over a million dollars, was no money down and cashback under the table, negative money down, and was made to an unemployed no-hablo-english hispanic.

So why were they making those ridiculous loans?  And who was making those ridiculous loans?  Well mostly it was
countrywide and Washington Mutual - banks whose bosses had drunk the PC Koolaid about redlining and all that, banks that in the end went under because of all the loans they had made to those poor victimized oppressed minorities, banks that were super duper politically correct, banks that were empowered by the regulators to take over other banks with other people's money because they were more politically correct than thou.

Every single bank except one was making easy money loans to everyone "No money, no credit, bad credit?   No Problem!", but some were reluctant, two, Countrywide and Washington Mutual, were wildly enthusiastic, and all of them that were making easy money loans were targeting their easy money loans primarily to protected minorities.

And what happened to the one bank that refused to make easy money loans?  The regulators condemned it as racist (http://www2.fdic.gov/crapes/2007/32069_071001.pdg) for not making easy money loans

Before government regulations, there were financial panics every 10 to 15 years.

Which panics did not lead to substantial inflation, deflation nor substantial unemployment, and from which the economy swiftly recovered.   The effect of government intervention has not been to eliminate crises, but to postpone them by printing money so that we get bigger but less frequent crises.

Do you want to live in an economic system where all your money is suddenly worthless every ten years or so?

But back in those days, your money did not become suddenly worthless.  Some bank accounts suddenly became worthless, but prices were stable then and they are not stable now.

The introduction of the fed was not justified on the basis of preventing financial panics, but on the basis that a certain private banker, whose bank's accounts had never become worthless, had too much power.  

The fed was introduced because responsible banking was rewarded by the market, rewarded by "too much" power and wealth, and irresponsible banking was punished by the market.  Predictably, what do we get?  We get irresponsible banking.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on October 28, 2011, 02:37:10 pm
Quote
The financial meltdown happened because there was too little government oversight.

Really?  From the real-world stuff I read, seems more like it happened because there was government collusion.

Quote
(and remember, all of the stuff was performed legally

Exactly.  Just 'cos it's legal don't make it right.

And yet you want even more laws (that "too little gov't oversight" remark)?


I asked about interest, 'cos interest has been of interest to me lately.

Imagine an island where there are only 100 dollars, and I have all the dollars.  You want to do something but need money to pay for it, so you borrow the $100 from me, at 10% due at the end of the year.  At the end of the year, you give me back the $100 but of course you don't have $10 because there are no more dollars (the only reason for this silly scenario is to make it clear that, as soon as interest enters the picture, we have a musical-chairs problem; it's less obvious with $billions sloshing around).  Three possibilities:

1) You've produced goods and have extra, let's say $50 worth, and I'm willing to take payment in goods, so I get the original dollars back plus a piece of your action.  Yay, everybody's better off.

2) You've produced goods but only $10 worth.  I'm still willing to take payment in goods, so I get my $100 plus your goods.  I'm richer, and you've just wasted a year.

3) You've produced nothing or very little (maybe total crop failure or something).  You are my debt slave to the tune of $10.

For that matter, if in any of the other cases I am not willing to take payment in goods, you are also my debt slave.

In all cases (except outright theft), whoever lends at interest gains; the borrower, not so much.  And something's gotta give -- either new dollars have to be created to represent the new goods produced (by whom? who decides? who keeps score?  Oh, and what about loans for nonproductive purposes like new cars?), or we're trying to put 10 marbles into a can and get 11 marbles back out, a fool's game.

It does seem to me that if a government was the bank (and the money-creator and scorekeeper), it could earn enough to obviate taxes (although no government's hunger for money can ever be satiated).  North Dakota started a state bank 90+ years ago and is today the only US state with a budget "in the black".  With banks in private hands, the private hands eventually own enough to buy all the government "oversight" (wink wink nudge nudge) they could possibly want.  Government -- oh goody we're saved.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Frank B. on October 31, 2011, 07:10:11 pm
Nope.  Thats simple interest.  I'm talking about where A sells B's loan to C for a profit.  C takes B's loan and combines it with D-M's loans and convinces N that this package makes a mighty-fine investment, with a defined percentage rate of return guaranteed by Q's insurance company.
If N agrees, (and why wouldnt he since the investment is backed by all those honest people repaying their loans with interest, and guaranteed by Q's reputable insurance policy?), then C gets a fee for bringing the two together.
C then goes on to sell the investment to R,S,T,U & V.  Making a fee every time.

What C hasnt told any of those investors is that H-M are deadbeats and most likely will never pay back their loans.
C has taken out an insurance policy with Z's insurance company against the high probability that the investment will fail.  Part of the insurance goes to pay off Q so that he will insur the investment even though he is informed of how likely it will fail, so Q is not out any money when he pays off the rate of return guarantee.

So C makes money out of every transaction and from an insurance policy against success.

If you think this is complicated, you should read about the real thing.  It will make your head swim.
The Wall Street risk takers even had quantum physicist created equations that showed why there was 0 risk in any of these investments, and how nothing could go wrong.

Because math is never wrong, right?

(and remember, all of the stuff was performed legally and aboveboard with full disclosure to all voluntary participants)

And because Fannie and Freddie (Agent C in this case) bought up massive amounts of sub prime loans and got AAA credit stamps put on them simply because they bought them. Also, because of their quasi-governmental status, those mortgages came with an implied guarantee.  Now when you do the math, those MBEs looked pretty good, and even if they aren't, then who cares, the US govt will not let Fannie and Freddie (and their pals) fail. So, physicists were right, there was 0 risk.  All natural market indicators were masked, and risk aversion  eliminated.  What happened next was entirely predictable.

The insurance part is normal, regardless of whether those mortgages are good or bad.  That is what AIG was in the business of doing for a long time.  Now they're a bank (so they could get all that TARP money).  Swell.

You are right that it was all legal.  Of course laws change with the prevailing political winds, so no big expectation there.  As to the "above board", I disagree. C, in your scenario, withheld important information on those mortgages, and misrepresented their credit worthiness, and thus their value.  That, my friend, is fraud.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on October 31, 2011, 08:00:07 pm
The FDA was seen as a way to get rid of an old danger without creating a new one which could be worse.

That is not what happened.   Just as the Fed was created not in response to a private sector financial crisis, but in response to a Jewish banker having too much power, and shortly after it was created, it created the biggest crisis of them all, the FDA was not created in response to a bad medication, nor in response to people getting sick from meat.

The FDA was created in response to an "expose" of the meat packing industry, which was in fact a grab for union power and centralized monopoly.  I repeat:  It was not created in response to people getting sick from eating meat.  They wanted to shut down ordinary people and ordinary butchers from butchering animals, to centralize the killing of animals.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on October 31, 2011, 11:41:16 pm
As to the "above board", I disagree. C, in your scenario, withheld important information on those mortgages, and misrepresented their credit worthiness, and thus their value.  That, my friend, is fraud.

A functional financial system requires truth, and that lies be severely punished.  Affirmative action requires lies, and that truth be severely punished.  So when Affirmative Action came to finance, it was inevitable that the financial system would collapse permanently and irreversibly.  Our financial system is now undead, and will remain so.  The semblance of life restored by bailouts is purely pretence.

The overwhelming majority of the deadbeats were Hispanic deadbeats.  It was thus difficult to say that they were deadbeats without coming close to implying that Hispanics tend to be deadbeats, without implying that the CRA was fraud.  Either suggestion would destroy your banking career, and likely destroy your bank.

The CRA bureaucracy argued that credit standards had "disparate impact" on protected minorities.  Anything that has disparate impact impact is racist and illegal, because you are not allowed to defend criteria that have disparate impact by suggesting that the minority that they have disparate impact on is no damn good.  So if requiring people to have an income and assets tends to disqualify most illegal immigrants, you must be racist.  So you cannot require borrowers to have income and assets.  You cannot even argue that borrowers need to have income and assets, because that is perilously close to racism.

The west's economic crisis was caused by giving Nobel prizes to Marie Curie:

When they gave out Nobel prizes on the basis of race, sex, nationality, and political alignment rather than accomplishment, it became necessary to give out degrees on the basis of race, sex, and political alignment, rather than knowledge of the material, otherwise the discrepancy in degrees would be "discrimination", and if anyone was allowed to doubt that the discrepancy was discrimination, those with affirmative action Nobel prizes would be exposed to ridicule.

When they gave out degrees on the basis of race, sex, and political alignment, it became necessary to give out jobs on the basis of race, sex, and political connection, rather than ability to do the job, otherwise the failure of those with affirmative action degrees would be "discrimination", and if anyone was allowed to doubt that the discrepancy was discrimination, the degrees would be exposed to ridicule.

When they gave out jobs on the basis of race, sex, and political connection, it became necessary to give out a middle class lifestyle on the basis of race and sex, otherwise the failure of those with affirmative action jobs to live a middle class lifestyle would be "discrimination", and if anyone was allowed to doubt that the discrepancy was discrimination, the jobs would be exposed to ridicule.

When they gave out a middle class lifestyle on the basis of race and sex, the recipients still did not live a middle class lifestyle, so the money was not repaid.

So rather than ridicule Marie Curie's Nobel prizes, the government took on a trillion dollars of debt.

None of the changes that are necessary to get us out of this hole are politically possible, until it is politically possible to ridicule Marie Curie for getting a ludicrous Nobel prize for doing science while in possession of a pussy.

Trees do not grow to the sky, but they grow till they fall.  Affirmative action cannot be slightly reduced.  Being built on lies, it must grow till it collapses altogether.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: macsnafu on November 01, 2011, 11:04:26 am
I'd just like to point out that much so-called "deregulation" still provides government protection or coverage of the allegedly de-regulated industry.  Back in the 1980's for example, savings and loans were deregulated by Reagan, giving them the freedom to invest in riskier things, but they were still covered by the FSLIC, federal insurance.  Naturally, when the bottom fell out, there wasn't enough money in the FSLIC to cover it all, and the taxpayers ended up paying for it. 
Rights include responsibilities, and government privileges are no better than government restrictions in the end.  In an actual unregulated free market, failed businesses would not be able to "socialize" their losses on anybody who did not incur those losses or not directly related to those businesses.

So most talk about deregulation is still a red herring in an attempt to blame laissez-faire or free markets for something that could not happen in a laissez-faire free market.  Government was still responsible for the financial crisis.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 01, 2011, 11:48:18 am
As to the "above board", I disagree. C, in your scenario, withheld important information on those mortgages, and misrepresented their credit worthiness, and thus their value.  That, my friend, is fraud.

A functional financial system requires truth, and that lies be severely punished.  Affirmative action requires lies, and that truth be severely punished.  So when Affirmative Action came to finance, it was inevitable that the financial system would collapse permanently and irreversibly.  Our financial system is now undead, and will remain so.  The semblance of life restored by bailouts is purely pretence.

The overwhelming majority of the deadbeats were Hispanic deadbeats.  It was thus difficult to say that they were deadbeats without coming close to implying that Hispanics tend to be deadbeats, without implying that the CRA was fraud.  Either suggestion would destroy your banking career, and likely destroy your bank.

The CRA bureaucracy argued that credit standards had "disparate impact" on protected minorities.  Anything that has disparate impact impact is racist and illegal, because you are not allowed to defend criteria that have disparate impact by suggesting that the minority that they have disparate impact on is no damn good.  So if requiring people to have an income and assets tends to disqualify most illegal immigrants, you must be racist.  So you cannot require borrowers to have income and assets.  You cannot even argue that borrowers need to have income and assets, because that is perilously close to racism.

The west's economic crisis was caused by giving Nobel prizes to Marie Curie:

When they gave out Nobel prizes on the basis of race, sex, nationality, and political alignment rather than accomplishment, it became necessary to give out degrees on the basis of race, sex, and political alignment, rather than knowledge of the material, otherwise the discrepancy in degrees would be "discrimination", and if anyone was allowed to doubt that the discrepancy was discrimination, those with affirmative action Nobel prizes would be exposed to ridicule.

When they gave out degrees on the basis of race, sex, and political alignment, it became necessary to give out jobs on the basis of race, sex, and political connection, rather than ability to do the job, otherwise the failure of those with affirmative action degrees would be "discrimination", and if anyone was allowed to doubt that the discrepancy was discrimination, the degrees would be exposed to ridicule.

When they gave out jobs on the basis of race, sex, and political connection, it became necessary to give out a middle class lifestyle on the basis of race and sex, otherwise the failure of those with affirmative action jobs to live a middle class lifestyle would be "discrimination", and if anyone was allowed to doubt that the discrepancy was discrimination, the jobs would be exposed to ridicule.

When they gave out a middle class lifestyle on the basis of race and sex, the recipients still did not live a middle class lifestyle, so the money was not repaid.

So rather than ridicule Marie Curie's Nobel prizes, the government took on a trillion dollars of debt.

None of the changes that are necessary to get us out of this hole are politically possible, until it is politically possible to ridicule Marie Curie for getting a ludicrous Nobel prize for doing science while in possession of a pussy.

Trees do not grow to the sky, but they grow till they fall.  Affirmative action cannot be slightly reduced.  Being built on lies, it must grow till it collapses altogether.



Sam, your bigotry (since I do not know anymore of you than what is here, I do not know if you are a racist, but I suspect not; you hate gays and Jews alike.) is plainly apparent for all to see.
It is often amusing to see the lengths to which you will go to say that all the ills in America are the fault of group X or group Y, or from the consequences of government pandering to whatever group you are mad at today.
Why dont you Man Up and just say what you think: "All minorities must wear a distinctive ribbon so as to identify them to authorities."
You know, like Hitler did.
You obviously hate gays, so lets round them all up and gas them.  You dont believe in humane treatment, so when you round up all the gays they will be dispatched cruelly but efficiently.

You have a distinct distaste for Hispanic and poor people of all types, soi lets kill all of them too.

You hate all forms of authority and government, so lets kill them too; simply associating with such people is evidence of irredeemable guilt, so they should all be killed.

You are the kind of person that would make life in AnCap unbearable; at least for the short while until someone took offense and killed you.

I try very hard to ignore you or educate you, but it is such a lost cause.  I cant help myself, because I want to bring people to the realization of truth and facts.
Of course, I am not always right; but at least I try.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 01, 2011, 11:53:29 am
Quote
The financial meltdown happened because there was too little government oversight.

Really?  From the real-world stuff I read, seems more like it happened because there was government collusion.

Quote
(and remember, all of the stuff was performed legally

Exactly.  Just 'cos it's legal don't make it right.

And yet you want even more laws (that "too little gov't oversight" remark)?


I asked about interest, 'cos interest has been of interest to me lately.

Imagine an island where there are only 100 dollars, and I have all the dollars.  You want to do something but need money to pay for it, so you borrow the $100 from me, at 10% due at the end of the year.  At the end of the year, you give me back the $100 but of course you don't have $10 because there are no more dollars (the only reason for this silly scenario is to make it clear that, as soon as interest enters the picture, we have a musical-chairs problem; it's less obvious with $billions sloshing around).  Three possibilities:

1) You've produced goods and have extra, let's say $50 worth, and I'm willing to take payment in goods, so I get the original dollars back plus a piece of your action.  Yay, everybody's better off.

2) You've produced goods but only $10 worth.  I'm still willing to take payment in goods, so I get my $100 plus your goods.  I'm richer, and you've just wasted a year.

3) You've produced nothing or very little (maybe total crop failure or something).  You are my debt slave to the tune of $10.

For that matter, if in any of the other cases I am not willing to take payment in goods, you are also my debt slave.

In all cases (except outright theft), whoever lends at interest gains; the borrower, not so much.  And something's gotta give -- either new dollars have to be created to represent the new goods produced (by whom? who decides? who keeps score?  Oh, and what about loans for nonproductive purposes like new cars?), or we're trying to put 10 marbles into a can and get 11 marbles back out, a fool's game.

It does seem to me that if a government was the bank (and the money-creator and scorekeeper), it could earn enough to obviate taxes (although no government's hunger for money can ever be satiated).  North Dakota started a state bank 90+ years ago and is today the only US state with a budget "in the black".  With banks in private hands, the private hands eventually own enough to buy all the government "oversight" (wink wink nudge nudge) they could possibly want.  Government -- oh goody we're saved.

You asked if I meant simple interest, and I said no.
Then you went on to talk philosophy, and basic money systems instead of dealing with reality.

I talked about the reality of fraud in the system, even with oversight, ineffective though it was.
AnCap in an established society has to deal with the facts on the ground, not pretend that everything starts from square one.  Because it wont.

I stated this divergence because I wanted to talk about Capitalism in AnCap.
Not philosophy.

How does AnCap deal with unseen fraud in big money circles?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 01, 2011, 01:53:35 pm
Sam, your bigotry (since I do not know anymore of you than what is here, I do not know if you are a racist, but I suspect not; you hate gays and Jews alike.) is plainly apparent for all to see.

You are the one that hates Jews. As for gays, I don't hate gays, I think they tend to be unreliable and transmit an alarmingly wide variety of diseases.  I don't think anything unfavorable about Jews, nor have I said anything unfavorable about Jews.  I used to think that Israel's policy on Palestinians terror was too harsh, but the consequences of the withdrawal from Gaza and Lebanon demonstrated it was too lenient.

It is often amusing to see the lengths to which you will go to say that all the ills in America are the fault of group X or group Y, or from the consequences of government pandering to whatever group you are mad at today.

If you want to blame lack of regulation for the great recession, you have to claim that the wise regulators failed to restrain the greedy banks from making no money down loans to people with no credit, no job, no assets, and no income.  

So what then did the regulators do when Beverly Hills Bank refused to make no money down loans to people with no credit, no job, no assets, and no income?

The regulators called them racists and demanded that they make "innovative" loans to Mexicans.

The overwhelming majority of dud loans were made to Mexicans.  The private banks that lost the most money, Countrywide and WaMu, were infamously PC.  The one bank that refused to lower its lending standards, Beverly Hills Bank, was condemned by the regulators as racist ("Substantially noncompliant with the Community Reinvestment Act") for refusing to lower its lending standards.

Every where in the world, the financial crisis has been a crisis of political lending, of banks making loans to government favored groups.  In the US, those groups were voting blocks favored on the basis of race.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 01, 2011, 02:06:14 pm
How does AnCap deal with unseen fraud in big money circles?

Unseen fraud can only be dealt with after it becomes seen fraud.  After the shit hits the fan, the depositors hang the bankers.  Recall what happened to the board of Carrian Group.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: happycrow on November 03, 2011, 09:05:36 am
Concidering the above posts...

There is the whole "being a good neighbor" thing too. The thing that should stop 90% of all frivolous (sp?) lawsuits in the world and make people settle their differences outside court, possibly across a cup of coffee.

Don't tend to weight in on this sort of thing too much, though I do enjoy the discussions and CG's constant "Socratic Trolling," as it were, while I'm down here in TX and daydreaming of AK (and if I live long enough, Golevka).  But this statement reminds me that there are different legal concepts of justice.  One of them, as practiced by the Cherokee in the 18th century, is not so much concerned with punishment of crime, or even compensation for damage, but "restitution of mutual happiness,"  while they had a strong tendency to communitarian thought (and compulsion) much like their peers in New England and Germany of the time (not particularly attractive to us, though possibly attractive to CG).  I see a fairly strong parallel to that in how Cerean "courts" are shown to operate, and there are real-life equivalents.  I would in several cases accept compensation that was less than the actual value damaged, if said compensation made my life easier in some other way (e.g., if you busted up my car but were a generally agreeable and reliable person, I'd be fine with a smaller amount of compensation plus some work on my fences.  ymmv, of course).

(edited to fix vague and misleading writing)
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 03, 2011, 09:10:54 pm
One of them, as practiced by the Cherokee in the 18th century, is not so much concerned with punishment of crime, or even compensation for damage, but "restitution of mutual happiness,"  while they had a strong tendency to communitarian thought (and compulsion) much like their peers in New England and Germany of the time (not particularly attractive to us, though possibly attractive to CG).  I see a fairly strong parallel to that in how Cerean "courts" are shown to operate, and there are real-life equivalents.  I would in several cases accept compensation that was less than the actual value damaged, if said compensation made my life easier in some other way (e.g., if you busted up my car but were a generally agreeable and reliable person, I'd be fine with a smaller amount of compensation plus some work on my fences.

I am in favor of more hangings, plus some floggings and castrations.  Observe that Singapore, by a quite moderate and reasonable increase in the severity of punishment, reduced crime to near zero.  There are few burglars in Saudi Arabia, few rapists in Singapore.  The rape rate in Singapore is one five hundredth of the rape rate in Europe.

Singapore in the 1970s used to have a crime rate similar to that of other countriess.  A moderate increase in enforcement and severity reduced crime levels to between one hundredth and one thousandth of that of other countries.

Would we have had this crisis if banks that ran out of money defaulted on their accounts, and bankers that defaulted on their accounts had to justify their accounting as accurate, cautious, and reasonable - or die?

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: happycrow on November 04, 2011, 09:00:31 am
Sam,

Respectfully, I see that as a bit of a case of goal-post-moving.  On two counts:

1.  We have not one banking crisis but several going on simultaneously.
2.  In neither case would THIS set of crises have occurred, because in an AnCap situation (or even a MinCap* situation) would you have had a governmental backstop using coerced tax funds allowing bankers to get away with high-risk affairs and letting them slide on Due-diligence.  Appraisal fraud such as was commonplace on the *commercial* side of the MBS market bubble (which gets much less news, and was why I left the banking sector for humbler but more honest pastures) might very well continue unabated depending on how "feudal" the arrangements wound up being.

*I actually prefer a Minarchy based on adult signatory-to-contract, given the semi-feudal experience of parts of the Mountain West Frontier.  But at this point, that's talking strawberry ice cream vs. mango-flavored, little difference compared to today's fascist state.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 04, 2011, 02:11:32 pm
1.  We have not one banking crisis but several going on simultaneously.

All the banking crises were caused by irresponsible political lending, in the US lending to poor people in general, members of protected minority groups in particular, and for the most part, caused by lending to underclass Mexicans.

2.  In neither case would THIS set of crises have occurred, because in an AnCap situation (or even a MinCap* situation) would you have had a governmental backstop using coerced tax funds allowing bankers to get away with high-risk affairs and letting them slide on Due-diligence.

A banker borrows short and lends long, because that is profitable and convenient and everyone benefits.  Then one day, something bad happens, and everyone wants to withdraw their money, and there is no money.

Without government backing bankers would have been less inclined to lend irresponsibly, and without government pressure bankers would have been less inclined to lend irresponsibly, but bankers will always be tempted to take risks they should not, because if they win their bets, they keep the money, and if they lose their bets, someone else loses the money.

On this point, the occupy wall street crowd of moochers and parasites are correct.  Bankers have bad incentives that will lead to them doing bad things.  The problem is that the Occupy Wall Street solution is that banks should be more regulated - which is to say people like those at Occupy Wall Street should run them - over educated hippies trained in Marxism and hating white males, but ignorant of maths, finance, probability, or statistics.  We already tried that, with entirely predictable consequences.

 Appraisal fraud such as was commonplace on the *commercial* side of the MBS market bubble (which gets much less news)

It gets much less news, because it caused far less problems.  Most of the money was lost on Mexicans, the vast majority of them underclass Mexicans.  In the US, race politics is the very center of the crisis, as is obvious from the CRA condemnation of Beverly Hills Bank - which is not to say the bankers were innocent.  Most of them were happy to play along.

This is a real problem, to which Occupy Wall Street is the wrong solution, is a call for more of the solution we already tried.  Bankers have bad incentives, incentives to do the wrong thing.  The problem, however, is that regulators have even worse incentives.

Imagine the mob at occupy Wall Street regulating the banks.  No need to imagine.  That is what we already have!

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on November 04, 2011, 05:14:49 pm
Quote
Imagine the mob at occupy Wall Street .... (emphasis added)

Who said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"?

I don't need to "imagine" the folks in the #occupy movement.  I am one.  Aren't you lucky this format protects you from having to look me in the eye?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 04, 2011, 08:24:15 pm
I don't need to "imagine" the folks in the #occupy movement.  I am one.

The Occupy Wall Street movement is 99% astroturf - observe, for example, the Mayor of Oakland directing her grotesquely overpaid city employees to "strike" at full pay.

In so far as there is any movement beyond puppets paid to show up by minions of the Democratic Party apparatus, they don't have any coherent demands.  In so far as they have any coherent demands, the number one demand is that they be bailed out also, with guaranteed jobs in the virtue industry, such as diversity counselor, the business of enforcing virtue on other people, jobs for those officially accredited by prestigious universities as adequately trained in hating whites, males, and white males.  They specifically reject jobs producing anything or performing any service that the recipient of that service is willing to pay for, as inappropriate for their immensely elevated social status.  They want the jobs for which they have been trained, having been trained in hating people and stopping other people from producing stuff, trained for the virtue business.

And talking about their elevated social status:  Observe the addresses of those arrested: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/02/opulent-homes-of-the-99-percent-slideshow/5_1/ (http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/02/opulent-homes-of-the-99-percent-slideshow/5_1/)

And talking about hatred:  Observe: no enemies to the left, no friends to the right  http://blog.jim.com/politics/no-friends-to-the-right-2.html (http://blog.jim.com/politics/no-friends-to-the-right-2.html)

Have you attended one of their meetings where they supposedly generate consensus about what is to be done?  Supposedly everyone is equal and everyone is welcome, but unless you know every incredibly minute detail of the ruling elite consensus on everything, which requires a lifetime of dedicated study, your opinion is not going to affect the “consensus” in the slightest.  Everyone is equal at those meetings, but some people are considerably more equal than others.  It is not enough to be politically correct, you need an Ivy League education in political correctness.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 05, 2011, 12:26:52 pm
1.  We have not one banking crisis but several going on simultaneously.

All the banking crises were caused by irresponsible political lending, in the US lending to poor people in general, members of protected minority groups in particular, and for the most part, caused by lending to underclass Mexicans.

Please give us verifiable proof of this.  No Fox News or right wing hate blogs like dailycaller of jim.com please.
Like I said, independantly verifiable.

Quote
2.  In neither case would THIS set of crises have occurred, because in an AnCap situation (or even a MinCap* situation) would you have had a governmental backstop using coerced tax funds allowing bankers to get away with high-risk affairs and letting them slide on Due-diligence.

A banker borrows short and lends long, because that is profitable and convenient and everyone benefits.  Then one day, something bad happens, and everyone wants to withdraw their money, and there is no money.

Without government backing bankers would have been less inclined to lend irresponsibly, and without government pressure bankers would have been less inclined to lend irresponsibly, but bankers will always be tempted to take risks they should not, because if they win their bets, they keep the money, and if they lose their bets, someone else loses the money.

Tell that to Enron.  They took incredible risks, and did it in front of everyone.  Because Ken lay was a primary Bush fundraiser, there was no oversight of Enrons activities.
Enron disrupted productions, delayed people, drove up prices.
This is what no oversight does for companies.  Most Capitalist companies are driven by the need for ever-increasing profits at all costs, and by increasingly greedy, ego-maniacal executives.

Quote
On this point, the occupy wall street crowd of moochers and parasites are correct.  Bankers have bad incentives that will lead to them doing bad things.  The problem is that the Occupy Wall Street solution is that banks should be more regulated - which is to say people like those at Occupy Wall Street should run them - over educated hippies trained in Marxism and hating white males, but ignorant of maths, finance, probability, or statistics.  We already tried that, with entirely predictable consequences.

And the alternative is better?  Over educated, ego-maniacal professionals who have been told they are the "Masters of the Universe" for most of their college and work years?
These same people are just as "ignorant of maths, finance, probability, or statistics" as the protestors you deride!
The only statistics they care about are the ones that say they are wonderful, successful, richer than the guy at the next desk over and getting richer.
These are the guys who hired nuclear physicists to create equations that proved there was no risk in investing in sub-prime mortgages; you cant argue with math, now can you?
After all, 2+2 always equals 4, right?  Unless you're in Calculus, where 2+2 can equal 5.

Quote
 Appraisal fraud such as was commonplace on the *commercial* side of the MBS market bubble (which gets much less news)

It gets much less news, because it caused far less problems.  Most of the money was lost on Mexicans, the vast majority of them underclass Mexicans.  In the US, race politics is the very center of the crisis, as is obvious from the CRA condemnation of Beverly Hills Bank - which is not to say the bankers were innocent.  Most of them were happy to play along.

Verifiable proof please, or shut the up with your hatred of Mexicans.
And please stop with the Beverly Hills Bank example, too.  One bank out of tens of thousands might be enough proof of govt evil for this forum, but its obvious that you only have one example out of every other bank in the entire US or you would have used more than just that one.

What is it with that bank?  Did you lose money at that bank; did one bureaucrat out of millions torque you off?
You dont have any proof that every bad loan in American was given to illegal Mexican underclass workers, or you would have linked to it.

OK, so one bureaucrat got mad at one bank in Beverly Hills for not making bad loans, so what?
Of course a Beverly Hills bank isnt going to make loans to poor people!  Its Beverly Hills!  Its where rich people live!

Quote
This is a real problem, to which Occupy Wall Street is the wrong solution, is a call for more of the solution we already tried.  Bankers have bad incentives, incentives to do the wrong thing.  The problem, however, is that regulators have even worse incentives.

Without even the thought of maybe, possible consequences, bankers with bad incentives will keep going!

Quote
Imagine the mob at occupy Wall Street regulating the banks.  No need to imagine.  That is what we already have!
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 05, 2011, 08:19:13 pm
The problem is that the Occupy Wall Street solution is that banks should be more regulated - which is to say people like those at Occupy Wall Street should run them - over educated hippies trained in Marxism and hating white males, but ignorant of maths, finance, probability, or statistics.  We already tried that, with entirely predictable consequences.

And the alternative is better?  Over educated, ego-maniacal professionals who have been told they are the "Masters of the Universe" for most of their college and work years?
These same people are just as "ignorant of maths, finance, probability, or statistics" as the protestors you deride!

The masters of the universe were "quants".  Google it.  Quants are specifically trained in maths, finance, probability and statistics, which is why I listed those particular skills.

Though a quant has incentive to arrange bets so that if the quant wins, the quant wins, and if the quant loses, the quant is bailed out, a quant is competent, and regulator is not competent.  The regulator has no idea what the quant is doing. Further, a quant has a time horizon extending beyond the next election, whereas a regulator does not.

The big error of the quants was to disregard the fat tails of the non normal distribution - which they probably disregarded not because they were stupid, but because in a fat tail event, someone else would wind up with the dud contracts, most likely the taxpayer, or failing the US taxpayer, German banks.  The regulators did not even know what a non normal distribution was, other than perhaps that a normal distribution is also called the bell curve, and the bell curve is racist.  They would probably think therefore, that a non normal distribution is anti racism, though "fat tails", which means much the same thing, would sound to them like a racial epithet against black and Hispanic women.  The average regulator probably thinks that a fat tail event is an overweight Hispanic woman attempting to flirt with a quant.

And please stop with the Beverly Hills Bank example, too.

Beverly Hills bank was the only bank in America to refuse to drop its lending standards to ridiculously low levels.  Because of its failure to drop its lending standards, the regulators came down on it.

We have a pile of government papers warning bankers that demanding assets, income, and credit rating has disparate impact, and is therefore racist, and when one bank failed to get the hint, the regulators called that bank racist.

One bank out of tens of thousands

The question is why did the other 9999 banks drop their lending standards?  The one bank that did not drop its lending standards provides the answer.

The behavior of the banks was bad, but the behavior of the regulators was far worse, and the worst thing about the banks behavior was their failure to resist regulatory demands that the banks should behave even worse than they were naturally inclined to behave.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 06, 2011, 08:04:24 pm
The problem is that the Occupy Wall Street solution is that banks should be more regulated - which is to say people like those at Occupy Wall Street should run them - over educated hippies trained in Marxism and hating white males, but ignorant of maths, finance, probability, or statistics.  We already tried that, with entirely predictable consequences.

And the alternative is better?  Over educated, ego-maniacal professionals who have been told they are the "Masters of the Universe" for most of their college and work years?
These same people are just as "ignorant of maths, finance, probability, or statistics" as the protestors you deride!

The masters of the universe were "quants".  Google it.  Quants are specifically trained in maths, finance, probability and statistics, which is why I listed those particular skills.

Though a quant has incentive to arrange bets so that if the quant wins, the quant wins, and if the quant loses, the quant is bailed out, a quant is competent, and regulator is not competent.  The regulator has no idea what the quant is doing. Further, a quant has a time horizon extending beyond the next election, whereas a regulator does not.

The big error of the quants was to disregard the fat tails of the non normal distribution - which they probably disregarded not because they were stupid, but because in a fat tail event, someone else would wind up with the dud contracts, most likely the taxpayer, or failing the US taxpayer, German banks.  The regulators did not even know what a non normal distribution was, other than perhaps that a normal distribution is also called the bell curve, and the bell curve is racist.  They would probably think therefore, that a non normal distribution is anti racism, though "fat tails", which means much the same thing, would sound to them like a racial epithet against black and Hispanic women.  The average regulator probably thinks that a fat tail event is an overweight Hispanic woman attempting to flirt with a quant.

And please stop with the Beverly Hills Bank example, too.

Beverly Hills bank was the only bank in America to refuse to drop its lending standards to ridiculously low levels.  Because of its failure to drop its lending standards, the regulators came down on it.

We have a pile of government papers warning bankers that demanding assets, income, and credit rating has disparate impact, and is therefore racist, and when one bank failed to get the hint, the regulators called that bank racist.

One bank out of tens of thousands

The question is why did the other 9999 banks drop their lending standards?  The one bank that did not drop its lending standards provides the answer.

The behavior of the banks was bad, but the behavior of the regulators was far worse, and the worst thing about the banks behavior was their failure to resist regulatory demands that the banks should behave even worse than they were naturally inclined to behave.


The light begins to dawn.  You arent just some random troll, you are an astroturfer.
For one thing, laymen dont use the term "quants".
For another thing, your disdain of regulators makes you sound like a banker; because even the other people on this forum dont talk like that, and they love freedom and hate government and the regulation it brings.
I dispute your argument of the quants time horizon:  the quant has a time horizon of exactly three months, just like any other Wall Street employee.  The quant is an analyst whose job it is to provide a mathematical answer to a time sensitive decision of what price, how much risk, or "how do we destroy Americas economy, and make it look like someone else's fault".

Simply put, a quant is just another computer programmer.

Your buddies in the quant industry ignored your "fat tail" events because, as computer programmers and mathematics majors, they have no education in economics.

Also, not only are you a Wall Street-paid astroturfing troll, you also obviously worked for or with this bank of yours; whgich is why you are so upset about it and keep going on and on and on and on and on about it.

Lastly, who is this "we" who has all this documentation you mention?

I should know better than to feed the trolls.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 07, 2011, 01:30:18 am
Quote
Imagine the mob at occupy Wall Street .... (emphasis added)

Who said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"?

I don't need to "imagine" the folks in the #occupy movement.  I am one.  Aren't you lucky this format protects you from having to look me in the eye?

I'm surprised at you, mellyrn; as an AnCap, I thought you were all for unregulated capitalism.
Isn that what we've been arguing about?  No regulations, no oversight; total freedom to let the capitalists do whatever they want?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on November 07, 2011, 07:10:33 am
Quote
I'm surprised at you, mellyrn; as an AnCap, I thought you were all for unregulated capitalism.
Isn that what we've been arguing about?  No regulations, no oversight; total freedom to let the capitalists do whatever they want?

In what do you see the contradiction?  I think the current financial mess happened because of governmental collusion and protection, and that it is not an example of a truly free market at all.  E.g., if it were not for government decreeing that Federal Reserve (a private bank, no more "federal" than Federal Express) notes are the lawful currency of the land, I wouldn't have to use them.

And "no regulations" does not equal "no oversight" -- in a free market I can choose not to do business with a capitalist who violates my preferences.  And you can choose to do business with him if you don't mind his practices.  Whether he gets to stay in business, then, will depend on whether the community is more like you or more like me:  he won't get to stay in business just for having bought the (artificial) regulators, but instead for having satisfied the inherent "regulators".


Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on November 07, 2011, 08:10:48 am
Quote
Observe that Singapore, by a quite moderate and reasonable increase in the severity of punishment, reduced crime to near zero.

I gather that, in your eyes, violence committed by the state doesn't count as "crime".
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: happycrow on November 07, 2011, 08:28:32 am
It gets much less news, because it caused far less problems.  Most of the money was lost on Mexicans, the vast majority of them underclass Mexicans.  In the US, race politics is the very center of the crisis, as is obvious from the CRA condemnation of Beverly Hills Bank - which is not to say the bankers were innocent.  Most of them were happy to play along.

With all due respect, Sam, when all one has is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.  Underclass Mexicans are not generally in the habit of financing the purchase of apartment buildings and shopping centers.  
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 07, 2011, 08:56:45 am
It gets much less news, because it caused far less problems.  Most of the money was lost on Mexicans, the vast majority of them underclass Mexicans.  In the US, race politics is the very center of the crisis, as is obvious from the CRA condemnation of Beverly Hills Bank - which is not to say the bankers were innocent.  Most of them were happy to play along.

With all due respect, Sam, when all one has is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.  Underclass Mexicans are not generally in the habit of financing the purchase of apartment buildings and shopping centers.  

In sams view of the world, they are.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: macsnafu on November 07, 2011, 10:59:37 am
Quote
Imagine the mob at occupy Wall Street .... (emphasis added)

Who said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"?

I don't need to "imagine" the folks in the #occupy movement.  I am one.  Aren't you lucky this format protects you from having to look me in the eye?

I'm surprised at you, mellyrn; as an AnCap, I thought you were all for unregulated capitalism.
Isn that what we've been arguing about?  No regulations, no oversight; total freedom to let the capitalists do whatever they want?


It's one thing to play Devil's Advocate; it's another thing to just play dumb.  Rights and responsibilities go together.  Sam did make the point that without government backing and bailouts, banks would be more conservative and engage in less high-risk loans and investments.    So you can complain about unregulated banks all you want, but government privileges are just as bad as government restrictions.   We want to do away with both, get it?  In Ancap, there would be no massive redistribution of taxpayer money to bail out troubled banks who made bad, risky loans. 
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 07, 2011, 01:13:15 pm
Quote
Imagine the mob at occupy Wall Street .... (emphasis added)

Who said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"?

I don't need to "imagine" the folks in the #occupy movement.  I am one.  Aren't you lucky this format protects you from having to look me in the eye?

I'm surprised at you, mellyrn; as an AnCap, I thought you were all for unregulated capitalism.
Isn that what we've been arguing about?  No regulations, no oversight; total freedom to let the capitalists do whatever they want?


It's one thing to play Devil's Advocate; it's another thing to just play dumb.  Rights and responsibilities go together.  Sam did make the point that without government backing and bailouts, banks would be more conservative and engage in less high-risk loans and investments.    So you can complain about unregulated banks all you want, but government privileges are just as bad as government restrictions.   We want to do away with both, get it?  In Ancap, there would be no massive redistribution of taxpayer money to bail out troubled banks who made bad, risky loans. 

I get it; massive redistribution of wealth through the capitalist system, just none of it downward toward the product-buying public.

I know you will say that you can vote with your money, and your feet.  Do you really think that would make any difference?
If you do, it would surprise me; I had not taken you for a naif.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: macsnafu on November 07, 2011, 01:48:48 pm
Quote
Imagine the mob at occupy Wall Street .... (emphasis added)

Who said, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak and remove all doubt"?

I don't need to "imagine" the folks in the #occupy movement.  I am one.  Aren't you lucky this format protects you from having to look me in the eye?

I'm surprised at you, mellyrn; as an AnCap, I thought you were all for unregulated capitalism.
Isn that what we've been arguing about?  No regulations, no oversight; total freedom to let the capitalists do whatever they want?


It's one thing to play Devil's Advocate; it's another thing to just play dumb.  Rights and responsibilities go together.  Sam did make the point that without government backing and bailouts, banks would be more conservative and engage in less high-risk loans and investments.    So you can complain about unregulated banks all you want, but government privileges are just as bad as government restrictions.   We want to do away with both, get it?  In Ancap, there would be no massive redistribution of taxpayer money to bail out troubled banks who made bad, risky loans. 

I get it; massive redistribution of wealth through the capitalist system, just none of it downward toward the product-buying public.

I know you will say that you can vote with your money, and your feet.  Do you really think that would make any difference?
If you do, it would surprise me; I had not taken you for a naif.

No, you don't get it.  Without government privileges, like monopoly and subsidies and such, you only get rich by offering a product or service that people are willing to buy.  Like any voluntary exchange, it's trading value for value.  You could call that voting with your money, if you want, but you'll have to show how voluntary exchanges can result in the impoverishment of the consumer. 
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 07, 2011, 04:49:34 pm
Sam did make the point that without government backing and bailouts, banks would be more conservative and engage in less high-risk loans and investments.  

Banks would be more conservative.  But in the event of an economic crisis, some of the loss would be born by their depositors, thus their incentives to be conservative are inefficiently weak.  Thus banks are apt to be insufficiently conservative.

However, the incentives for regulators are worse than those of bankers, since regulators get political gain by directing loans to favored or politically well connected groups, and do not suffer any losses when such loans go bad.  Thus, from the lead up to the recent crisis, we have a great pile of documents where regulators demand that banks lend more recklessly, and threaten banks that are insufficiently reckless.

Having political authorities breathing down bankers necks to make sure the bankers lend responsibly, cannot work even if the political authorities have good intentions, since they are unlikely to know what loans are responsible, and the political authorities are unlikely to have good intentions.   We have a pile of documents from the lead up to this crisis revealing bad intentions.

Post hoc penalties, dire penalties for bankers going bankrupt, can work, and in the past have worked.  Regulating banks to lend safely cannot work, and is exactly what caused the present crisis.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 07, 2011, 07:33:49 pm
Sam did make the point that without government backing and bailouts, banks would be more conservative and engage in less high-risk loans and investments.  

Banks would be more conservative.  But in the event of an economic crisis, some of the loss would be born by their depositors, thus their incentives to be conservative are inefficiently weak.  Thus banks are apt to be insufficiently conservative.

However, the incentives for regulators are worse than those of bankers, since regulators get political gain by directing loans to favored or politically well connected groups, and do not suffer any losses when such loans go bad.  Thus, from the lead up to the recent crisis, we have a great pile of documents where regulators demand that banks lend more recklessly, and threaten banks that are insufficiently reckless.

Having political authorities breathing down bankers necks to make sure the bankers lend responsibly, cannot work even if the political authorities have good intentions, since they are unlikely to know what loans are responsible, and the political authorities are unlikely to have good intentions.   We have a pile of documents from the lead up to this crisis revealing bad intentions.

Post hoc penalties, dire penalties for bankers going bankrupt, can work, and in the past have worked.  Regulating banks to lend safely cannot work, and is exactly what caused the present crisis.

Reminder to self: do not feed the astro-turfing troll.  Make him work for his seven figure salary.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 08, 2011, 01:08:30 am
Underclass Mexicans are not generally in the habit of financing the purchase of apartment buildings and shopping centers.  
And how much money did the banks lose on apartment buildings and shopping centers?   What happened to Mortgage backed securities backed by apartment buildings and shopping centers?

When the banks loaned to build apartment buildings and shopping centers, they demanded that the investor put some serious money down, and had adequate income.  So though the investors lost money, the banks rarely did.

When the banks loaned to Mexicans, they made million dollar loans to people with no assets and no income to buy a house no money down.  On that, the banks got smacked big time.

People kept saying that the other shoe is going to drop, that soon the disaster on residential mortgages is going to repeat on commercial mortgages, on loans for shopping centers and offices.  But it never did.

And the reason people kept making this ludicrous prediction, endlessly repeated, never fulfilled, is that they were in denial about the fact that the dud loans were, for the most part, made on the basis of race, and went bad because they were made on the basis of race - went bad because the recipients were, for the most part, no damned good - lazy, feckless, and stupid.

Lending standards were lowered for everyone, but the reason that they were lowered for everyone, is that they needed to be lowered for the race based loans.

Similarly, when a computer science class affirmative actions lots of women into the class, they stop teaching pointer arithmetic for everyone, both male and female, because most of the females cannot do it.  In the same way, the banks lowered standards for everyone, but the primary beneficiaries of this drop in standards were the recipients of race based loans.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 08, 2011, 02:54:22 pm
And "no regulations" does not equal "no oversight" -- in a free market I can choose not to do business with a capitalist who violates my preferences.  And you can choose to do business with him if you don't mind his practices.

Presumably you would not deposit your money in a bank that made irresponsible loans, because you would doubt that you would get your money back.

Suppose, however, that the banker, and all of polite respectable society, lied to you that the loans were responsible, when they were not   This happened in the lead up to this crisis, and I cannot entirely blame the regulators for that, because similar lies have led to banking crises a hundred years ago, though not on such a gigantic scale, not on a scale capable of causing extensive economic disruption.

Suppose that one day the lies are exposed, everyone rushes to withdraw their money from the offending banks, and suddenly, the offending banks have no money to repay their depositors, which is pretty much what happened from time to time in the days before the fed,

You know my solution to that problem.  What is yours?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Apollo-Soyuz on November 08, 2011, 08:09:17 pm
I think the current financial mess happened because of governmental collusion and protection, and that it is not an example of a truly free market at all. 

more than likely the "current financial mess" is still current because the banks were nationalized and never were allowed to fail, and debt was papered over instead of being written off as a loss back in 2007.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 14, 2011, 01:23:59 pm
And "no regulations" does not equal "no oversight" -- in a free market I can choose not to do business with a capitalist who violates my preferences.  And you can choose to do business with him if you don't mind his practices.

Actually, neither you nor I will ever do business with a Capitalist, unless we too become rich.

We will do business with his or her employees, who have as much say in how the business is run as a grocery bagger in a supermarket.
We can choose not to do business with his or her business, much like people are doing with Bank Transfer Day, but such movement is usually so tiny that it doesnt impact the Capitalists desires for whatever practices they are engaged in.
Occasionally, such movement will act to reverse a small decision, such as some fee or other, but such movement will never be large enough to cause large-scale decision reversals.
There is just too much money to be made; and even if there was a stockholder revolt and the person(s) responsible for irresponsible policies and decisions were removed without pay, any successor would revert to irresponsibility once oversight were slackened.

Quote
You know my solution to that problem.  What is yours?

Well, its certainly not killing Mexicans and poor people; or leaving them to starve, penniless and homeless.

I have decided I do not wish to live in an anarchy.  My life is full enough as it is, and I just would not have any additional time to sit on the porch with a shotgun until the non-An-cappers got the message.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 14, 2011, 02:20:58 pm
Actually, neither you nor I will ever do business with a Capitalist, unless we too become rich.

We will do business with his or her employees, who have as much say in how the business is run as a grocery bagger in a supermarket.

We can choose not to do business with his or her business, much like people are doing with Bank Transfer Day, but such movement is usually so tiny that it doesnt impact the Capitalists desires for whatever practices they are engaged in.


What is not tiny is that people choose the best prices and the best service.

Compare arbitration provided by Visa, with arbitration provided by the courts.  Compare McDonalds with the Department of Motor Vehicles.

Compare a scout camp, with an Occupy Wall Street camp.  (Occupy Wall Street being as much a branch of the state as the courts and the Department of Motor Vehicles)

The difference is like the difference between South Korea and North Korea, like the difference between Nationalist China and Maoist China, like the difference between West Germany and East Germany.

Observe how US government housing projects are pretty much the same as Soviet housing was, and completely different from private housing.

Food and  clothing are provided by capitalists, education and police protection by the state.  Everyone gets enough food and clothing.  Not everyone gets police protection.  Everyone gets schooling, but schooling frequently fails to be education, so not everyone gets education.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on November 15, 2011, 08:46:49 am
Quote
I have decided I do not wish to live in an anarchy. 

You've decided you don't want to live in what you imagine (despite our best efforts) an anarchy to be. 

Quote
I just would not have any additional time to sit on the porch with a shotgun until the non-An-cappers got the message.

But you do have time to work solely to fund the State, before you can have any for yourself -- something like four+ months of every year, if you're statistically average, which is about 1/3 more than the average medieval serf owed to his lord.

You have time -- 12 years of it -- to spend learning that which an ordinarily-motivated homeschooler can learn in 4.

You have time to serve on fake juries -- fake because of being prevented from exercising their full, true power and serving instead merely to legitimize that which they are meant to scrutinize.

You have time to stand in line to vote in "elections" and imagine that you are a citizen rather than a subject.

You have time to drive below -- maybe well below -- your competent driving speed in deference to the State's additional income streampublic-safety directive.

Should the draft be reinstated, you'd have time to be conscripted to be some armchair warrior's real, live toy soldier . . . which could wind up being the last of all the time you'd ever have.

And you presumably have time to be falsely arrested just so State tools can meet their quotas:
http://tinyurl.com/cba3qp9

Those are just off the top of my head; I'm sure I'll think of some more by the time I hit "post".
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 15, 2011, 11:33:54 am
Quote
I have decided I do not wish to live in an anarchy. 

You've decided you don't want to live in what you imagine (despite our best efforts) an anarchy to be. 

Quote
I just would not have any additional time to sit on the porch with a shotgun until the non-An-cappers got the message.

But you do have time to work solely to fund the State, before you can have any for yourself -- something like four+ months of every year, if you're statistically average, which is about 1/3 more than the average medieval serf owed to his lord.

You have time -- 12 years of it -- to spend learning that which an ordinarily-motivated homeschooler can learn in 4.

You have time to serve on fake juries -- fake because of being prevented from exercising their full, true power and serving instead merely to legitimize that which they are meant to scrutinize.

You have time to stand in line to vote in "elections" and imagine that you are a citizen rather than a subject.

You have time to drive below -- maybe well below -- your competent driving speed in deference to the State's additional income streampublic-safety directive.

Should the draft be reinstated, you'd have time to be conscripted to be some armchair warrior's real, live toy soldier . . . which could wind up being the last of all the time you'd ever have.

And you presumably have time to be falsely arrested just so State tools can meet their quotas:
http://tinyurl.com/cba3qp9

Those are just off the top of my head; I'm sure I'll think of some more by the time I hit "post".

It gives you some idea of what I know an anarchy to be like that I am wiling to put up with (not approve of, merely tolerate) everything you said instead of deciding that anarchy is better.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on November 15, 2011, 12:05:30 pm
Quote
what I know an anarchy to be like

Oops, my bad!  When and where did you live in one?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: happycrow on November 16, 2011, 08:30:06 am
And how much money did the banks lose on apartment buildings and shopping centers?   What happened to Mortgage backed securities backed by apartment buildings and shopping centers?....People kept saying that the other shoe is going to drop, that soon the disaster on residential mortgages is going to repeat on commercial mortgages, on loans for shopping centers and offices.  But it never did.

And the reason people kept making this ludicrous prediction, endlessly repeated, never fulfilled, is that they were in denial about the fact that the dud loans were, for the most part, made on the basis of race, and went bad because they were made on the basis of race - went bad because the recipients were, for the most part, no damned good - lazy, feckless, and stupid.

You can keep making the assertion 'til the cows come home.  *I'm* the guy who assembled te loan packages, and I can tell you race was a complete non-factor -- the one and only factor was the race to obtain and hold the greatest possible market share.  Whether the market share as crap or not didn't seem to matter.  That *stupid* "race policy" was a factor in mbs did not mean it was so in *C*mbs.

And yes, I still think the other shoe's out there to drop -- loans with fraudulent appriasals hit the value of pensions, and a number of other indices, and I know for a fact that at least when *I* couldn't take the lack of ethics any more and left, the bank was holding onto lots o crap loans they couldn't even sell in an mbs environment.  But given all the *other* catastrophes going on in the world of finance, it wouldn't surprise me if cmbs turned out to simply be a blip.  Certainly the gutting of the dollar and "race to hyperinflation/QE-infinity" going on, combined with the partial default that already entails, takes the pressure off the loans quite a bit.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 16, 2011, 02:21:14 pm
the dud loans were, for the most part, made on the basis of race, and went bad because they were made on the basis of race - went bad because the recipients were, for the most part, no damned good - lazy, feckless, and stupid.

You can keep making the assertion 'til the cows come home.  *I'm* the guy who assembled te loan packages, and I can tell you race was a complete non-factor

A complete non factor that was nonetheless carefully recorded.

Race was a complete non factor in that you would make the same loan to a white deadbeat or a hispanic deadbeat, regardless of race, but it was a big factor in who was being recruited to receive these loans.

-- the one and only factor was the race to obtain and hold the race to obtain and hold the greatest possible market share.  Whether the market share as crap or not didn't seem to matter.  That *stupid* "race policy" was a factor in mbs did not mean it was so in *C*mbs.

A moment ago you said race was a non factor, and now you say it was a factor.  (Both statements being true in different senses)

Why then did they lose money mostly in mbs, where race was a factor, and not lose much in Cmbs, where race was not a factor?

the bank was holding onto lots o crap loans they couldn't even sell in an mbs environment.

And you have just confirmed one of the anecdotes that I was sure I could make.

So, why would the bank want a larger market share of crap assets?

Race to the bottom in frantic pursuit of ever larger market share makes sense if after you make a crap loan, you sell the loan to a bigger idiot, makes sense if you are getting market share in making crap loans then selling the crap loans to bigger idiots, but after 2005 November, the supply of bigger idiots largely dried up, and yet many banks continued make crap loans with their own money all the way into 2007

Therefore, the banks were not making crap loans for the sake of selling them to bigger idiots.  And no one wants to maximize market share in giving their own money away.

From 2005 November to 2007, the mbs market was undead, and yet the loans continued, primarily from Countrywide and WaMu.

Race was a complete non factor in the sense that anyone, regardless of race, was eligible for million dollar no money down loans, despite having no income, no job, and no assets, but surely you noticed the people arranging these loans tended to speak Spanish, that these loans were primarily marketed to people of particular races.

Similarly, when elite universities act to get sufficient females in their computer science courses, they frequently stop teaching either sex to program computers.  In that sense, gender is a complete non factor, but obviously gender was a factor in the decision to stop teaching people to program computers in computer science courses, and similarly, though race was not a factor in loaning money to particular individuals, it was very much a factor in the decision to lower standards, and the decision to market loans in particular ways.  

When people say that affirmative action does not consist of applying lower standards to women and non asian minorities, but of searching more aggressively for women and/or non asian minority candidates, often they are lying, but often they are telling the truth in the sense that what they mean is that after they searched more aggressively, and collected a bunch of recruits that could not meet standards, they lowered standards for everyone.

And thus we are increasingly seeing computer science courses that both males and females pass without any real ability to program computers, just as we see ninja loans made to both deadbeat whites and deadbeat hispanics - but primarily marketed to hispanics.

In order that women can pass in computer science, to some extent they graduate students on the basis of possession of a pussy, and to some extent, they give up teaching stuff that women are seldom capable of doing, give up teaching it to men or women.

And similarly, in order to lend money to hispanics, they go out and recruit hispanics, and lower loan standards for everyone, both white and hispanic, to levels that the hispanics they recruit can meet.  In that loan standards were often lowered for everyone, race was not a factor, and in that computing science standards were often lowered for everyone, gender was not a factor.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: happycrow on November 16, 2011, 04:23:16 pm
Sam, no offense, but it really helps if you actually read what I post.  I haven't contradicted myself at all:  race was a factor in MBS because Congress and Fannie/Freddie said "make race a factor in MBS."  You've discussed this at length.

Race was *not* a factor in CMBS because no such factors existed in those markets -- rather, they were simply corrupt and riding a classic bubble, chasing market share because that and other metrics determined how much individual players got at bonus time.  And the bonuses were *nuts,* by the way -- the admins were routinely picking up 5k for theirs, if that tells you how far into bubble-mentality folks were.

Where have banks lost money on MBS??  I'm assuming is a rhetorical question on your behalf -- if you don't know when banks lost money on that, you're not conversant enough with the issue to be in this conversation (helpful hint: them Countrywide folks you mention in your post). 

That said, we're not entirely on different pages here.  I'm no fan of affirmative action in any of its forms, but see little reason to really engage it as a topic.  I'm also not a fan of seatbelt and open-container laws -- no surprise, since I'm hanging out here, right?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 17, 2011, 01:09:35 am
race was a factor in MBS because Congress and Fannie/Freddie said "make race a factor in MBS."  You've discussed this at length.

Race was *not* a factor in CMBS because no such factors existed in those markets -- rather, they were simply corrupt and riding a classic bubble, chasing market share because that and other metrics determined how much individual players got at bonus time. 

Quite so.  CMBS was a plain old fashioned capitalist bubble, not evildoing by regulators.

It was also fueled by conflict of interest - that those receiving the bonuses failed to do due diligence on behalf of their customers - evildoing by capitalists, which worsened the madness of crowds that leads to bubbles.

But when the CMBS bubble burst, the banks did not lose the gigantic quantities of money they lost in MBS.

I am not arguing that capitalists are perfect angels, just that regulators are usually worse than those they regulate.

Finance is based on trust, trust can be violated, and frequently is.

I have never argued that bankers are nice people who should be free to do as they please.  I have instead argued that those that borrow short and lend long, and find themselves unable to pay their depositors, should be hung, or suffer debt slavery,
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: happycrow on November 17, 2011, 09:03:24 am
I think the current financial mess happened because of governmental collusion and protection, and that it is not an example of a truly free market at all. 

more than likely the "current financial mess" is still current because the banks were nationalized and never were allowed to fail, and debt was papered over instead of being written off as a loss back in 2007.

Ding ding!  Give that man a prize.  If the dollar hadn't been badly-devalued to bail out the banksters, the number of bank failures would have been significantly greater (and Sam, please, if you don't think banks lost money in CMBS, you're either trolling or just plain don't know what you're talking about), and the rest of us would have gotten on with life after a short but very sharp recession similar to the S&L crisis of the 80s.  Sadly, our political class is more or less owned by the banks and wasn't going to let that happen.  Gotta admire Iceland....
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on November 17, 2011, 10:13:49 am
Quote
Gotta admire Iceland....

AMEN to that!
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 17, 2011, 11:40:37 am
Quote
Gotta admire Iceland....

AMEN to that!

Sure, if you want rampant unemployment, and no ability to get credit to buy anything.  Of course, that means you'd have to pay cash for everything.
OOps! No job, no cash!

Sure the banks collapsed and werent bailed out, but then the economy collapsed.

Good Times!
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: mellyrn on November 17, 2011, 01:44:33 pm
Quote
but then the economy collapsed.

Good Times!

"Yet the fact remains that the outlook for the Icelandic economy is looking rather healthier than other distressed economies in Europe. . . ." (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/analysis-and-features/iceland-the-broken-economy-that-got-out-of-jail-2349905.html)

Sure, the economy collapsed -- temporarily.  And it could have stayed collapsed if the Icelandic people had just accepted responsibility for the bankers' bad investments.  Gosh, why would they not have wanted that?  Why take on a short-term, temporary hardship in order to avoid a long, possibly endless hardship?

That's the admirable thing, sweetie:  being tough enough to take the necessary medicine up front.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 17, 2011, 04:09:51 pm
Quote
Gotta admire Iceland....

Sure the banks collapsed and werent bailed out, but then the economy collapsed.

In 2008, the Icelandic banks collapsed, the government guaranteed them and promised bailout, with borrowed money, ("depositors' and investors' guarantee fund", and the 2009 June international agreement to repay the banks depositors)

And the economy promptly collapsed under the burden of the enormous liabilities of the fund. Then in 2010 March 6, the voters, by 93% to 2% voted to stiff the banks and their depositors, collapsing the depositors' and investors' guarantee fund, whose sole asset was taxpayer futures.

Since then, from 2010 March to the present, the Icelandic economy has started to recover

Unemployment is now 5.9% http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=383405 (http://www.icelandreview.com/icelandreview/search/news/Default.asp?ew_0_a_id=383405)

Obama would kill his mother for an unemployment rate of 5.9%

Recapping:  Icelandic government agrees to take on the banks liabilities; the icelandic economy collapses.  Icelanders are outraged by the collapse, reject the liabilities; unsurprisingly the economy improves.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Sieggy on November 17, 2011, 07:07:09 pm
race was a factor in MBS because Congress and Fannie/Freddie said "make race a factor in MBS."  You've discussed this at length.

Race was *not* a factor in CMBS because no such factors existed in those markets -- rather, they were simply corrupt and riding a classic bubble, chasing market share because that and other metrics determined how much individual players got at bonus time. 

Quite so.  CMBS was a plain old fashioned capitalist bubble, not evildoing by regulators.

It was also fueled by conflict of interest - that those receiving the bonuses failed to do due diligence on behalf of their customers - evildoing by capitalists, which worsened the madness of crowds that leads to bubbles.

But when the CMBS bubble burst, the banks did not lose the gigantic quantities of money they lost in MBS.

I am not arguing that capitalists are perfect angels, just that regulators are usually worse than those they regulate.

Finance is based on trust, trust can be violated, and frequently is.

I have never argued that bankers are nice people who should be free to do as they please.  I have instead argued that those that borrow short and lend long, and find themselves unable to pay their depositors, should be hung, or suffer debt slavery,
This was a classic example of too many piranhas and not enough cow . . . I live in SW Florida, and have seen housing bubbles before, but this one was more than a bubble, it was a mania. My home is paid for free and clear, and in the time before the bubble burst, I was getting 2 - 6 mail solicitations and an infuriating number of telemarketers calling a day wanting to sell me a mortgage (which I neither wanted or needed). About every third commercial on TV was for a builder, developer, or mortgage company.

Flipping was 'in' - the house 2 doors down from me which sold for $26,500 back in 1967 was bought by a speculator for $650,000, and the buyer bragged to me that he was going to sell it in a year for over a million. I just smiled and nodded . . . the house is now a rental, and last I heard, he couldn't move it for a third of that. I knew guys who were mortgaging their houses to the hilt and living high on the hog, others were flipping lots right and left. Out in Lehigh Acres, lots in BFE with no utilities which were going for a few thousand in the early 80s were going for close to $100K. It was nuts, the good times were rolling, and it was going to go on FOREVER because everyone KNEW that housing prices could only go up up UP!

Even after the crash, developers were still building strip centers which are still standing empty.  The developers had the land and the funding, so they continued to build even though they had no tenants lined up. If you think there's a housing glut, that's nothing compared to the commercial real estate glut we have here. And apparently, they don't feel the law of supply and demand applies to them, as they refuse to lower rents to a point that they can attract businesses. Within 5 miles of me are several hundred empty storefronts, and now the county is having to deal with an up surge of people operating businesses out of their homes that the county is NOT happy about.

Race wasn't an issue. If you had a pulse and could sign your name, you could buy a house, turn around, take a second on it (before even making their first payment), and go buy a car. Some developers were throwing in a car with a house purchase. Everyone was getting their money on the front end - who cared if the buyer was obviously unable to make payments? That's somebody ELSE'S problem. I knew brokers who were making $30K - $50K a month writing mortgages that were as firmly rooted as Birnham Wood. Numbers were all that mattered, and qualifying buyers was not even an issue - the brokers and bankers would fill out the forms for the buyers, put in whatever was needed to get it through, and present it to the buyer for signature. The developers set up kiosks in the Mall and told anyone interested that all they had to do was sign on the dotted line and they could move in tomorrow! Fraud was the order of the day, and as long as the bosses said it was OK, no one was going to do anything that would interfere with their commission and bonus checks. And the buyers were tickled pink, they were moving into houses that they thought were going to secure their futures, after all, the prices (they were assured) could only go up.

Greed ruled, the trough was overflowing, and the feeding was frenzied. No one wanted to hear about maybe the market was overheated, their monthly checks were all that mattered. Anyone who tried to point out that all this was unsustainable was shouted down. As long as the money flowed, no one wanted to heed any kind of warning. Everyone cheated - it's easy to blame the buyers, but the sales tactics used by the sellers were in many cases deceptive and despicable, and people with little education or experience with real estate could be led about like Shropshire sheep. I agree they were foolish consumers, but on the other hand, they were being fleeced by professionals.

Playing the race card in this debacle is sheer demagoguery. It didn't matter if you were a dumbass redneck moving up from a singlewide in the woods or an illegal with mexican mud still on your boots - if you could make a mark on a piece of paper, you were in like Flynn. And now that the music has stopped, everyone wants to blame everyone else. Bull. It was everyone in this who were intent on chewing off their piece of the cow with zero concern for due diligence or moral hazard, from the dimwitted, starry eyed buyers to the shrewd, gimlet eyed scammers to the self serving myopic politicians who facilitated this debacle.

A plague on all their houses. But like all plagues, it went epidemic, spread everywhere, and now we're all suffering the effects. I can only take comfort in the fact that I resisted the siren's lure of easy money, and I don't owe anyone a single cent.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 18, 2011, 04:17:08 am
Greed ruled, the trough was overflowing, and the feeding was frenzied. No one wanted to hear about maybe the market was overheated, their monthly checks were all that mattered. Anyone who tried to point out that all this was unsustainable was shouted down. As long as the money flowed, no one wanted to heed any kind of warning. Everyone cheated - it's easy to blame the buyers, but the sales tactics used by the sellers were in many cases deceptive and despicable, and people with little education or experience with real estate could be led about like Shropshire sheep. I agree they were foolish consumers, but on the other hand, they were being fleeced by professionals.

What I saw, in every case that I observed after 2005 November, was a Hispanic purchasing a startlingly expensive house with no money down, and cashback under the table.  How is that is Hispanic being fleeced?  How is he being foolish?

If the house goes up, he gets to flip it at a profit, if it goes down, he has the cashback and free housing, often free luxury housing, until they get around to evicting him.  Heads he wins a lot of money, tails he wins cashback and free housing.  Or, what commonly happened, was that when housing prices fell, was that he eventually negotiated the loan down to a payment schedule and interest rate that reflected the lower value of the house

That was not just a good deal for that Hispanic, that is a fantastic deal.

Now you might suppose that even if the Hispanic is not being fleeced, nonetheless the banks are making out like bandits selling dud mortgages to suckers on the MBS market, and before 2005 November there was a lot of that, but after 2005 November, the MBS market was undead, a zombie maintained in imitation of life.  Banks were, in substantial part, stuck with the dud mortgages they issued, or at least stuck with the worst of them.  From 2005 November to some time in 2007 people were pretending their existing mortgage backed securities were worth something, but were reluctant to expand the pretense to include more mortgage backed securities.

Playing the race card in this debacle is sheer demagoguery. It didn't matter if you were a dumbass redneck moving up from a singlewide in the woods or an illegal with mexican mud still on your boots - if you could make a mark on a piece of paper, you were in like Flynn.

Yet strange to report, somehow the vast majority of those receiving these loans were somehow not dumbass rednecks, but dumbass hispanics.

When Beverly Hills Bank was found to be "substantially noncompliant with the CRA", it was not because it had been failing to make these loans to "dumbass rednecks", but because it had been failing to make these loans to cat eating no-hablo-english wetbacks with no regular job.

And why is it horribly shocking to call someone a cat eating no-hablo-english wetback, but just fine, and a sign of social superiority, to call someone a dumbass redneck?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Sieggy on November 18, 2011, 08:23:14 am
Greed ruled, the trough was overflowing, and the feeding was frenzied. No one wanted to hear about maybe the market was overheated, their monthly checks were all that mattered. Anyone who tried to point out that all this was unsustainable was shouted down. As long as the money flowed, no one wanted to heed any kind of warning. Everyone cheated - it's easy to blame the buyers, but the sales tactics used by the sellers were in many cases deceptive and despicable, and people with little education or experience with real estate could be led about like Shropshire sheep. I agree they were foolish consumers, but on the other hand, they were being fleeced by professionals.

What I saw, in every case that I observed after 2005 November, was a Hispanic purchasing a startlingly expensive house with no money down, and cashback under the table.  How is that is Hispanic being fleeced?  How is he being foolish?

If the house goes up, he gets to flip it at a profit, if it goes down, he has the cashback and free housing, often free luxury housing, until they get around to evicting him.  Heads he wins a lot of money, tails he wins cashback and free housing.  Or, what commonly happened, was that when housing prices fell, was that he eventually negotiated the loan down to a payment schedule and interest rate that reflected the lower value of the house

That was not just a good deal for that Hispanic, that is a fantastic deal.

Now you might suppose that even if the Hispanic is not being fleeced, nonetheless the banks are making out like bandits selling dud mortgages to suckers on the MBS market, and before 2005 November there was a lot of that, but after 2005 November, the MBS market was undead, a zombie maintained in imitation of life.  Banks were, in substantial part, stuck with the dud mortgages they issued, or at least stuck with the worst of them.  From 2005 November to some time in 2007 people were pretending their existing mortgage backed securities were worth something, but were reluctant to expand the pretense to include more mortgage backed securities.

Playing the race card in this debacle is sheer demagoguery. It didn't matter if you were a dumbass redneck moving up from a singlewide in the woods or an illegal with mexican mud still on your boots - if you could make a mark on a piece of paper, you were in like Flynn.

Yet strange to report, somehow the vast majority of those receiving these loans were somehow not dumbass rednecks, but dumbass hispanics.

When Beverly Hills Bank was found to be "substantially noncompliant with the CRA", it was not because it had been failing to make these loans to "dumbass rednecks", but because it had been failing to make these loans to cat eating no-hablo-english wetbacks with no regular job.

And why is it horribly shocking to call someone a cat eating no-hablo-english wetback, but just fine, and a sign of social superiority, to call someone a dumbass redneck?


You're fixated on 'hispanics'. Hate to tell you this, but while yes, a lot of them bought houses poorly, there were a lot of just regular folk, including a great many retirees who put their money in what they though were sure fire safe investments. The guy who lost his shirt on the house a couple of doors down was a canadian, not hispanic. We had a crapload of people who bought second 'investment' homes here with their retirement money who are now greeters at Wal-Mart , working part time at 7-11s, and living on ramen noodles. There was a LOT of english and german money here that got taken to the cleaners, too. A very great many of the people who were living in single-wides out in the woods got houses . . . a lot of them are back in their single-wides now. And for the record, I tried warning a fair number of dumbass rednecks about what they were getting into, but got laughed at because I was a 'pinhead'. Sheesh . . .

And it wasn't just home sales, it was the shoddy mortgages that were being pushed on one and all. Seriously, between mail and phone, I was getting over 30 solicitations a week trying to get me to take out a mortgage on my house. As for who fleeced who, the brokers and bankers were selling to literally anyone who could hold a pen and pocketing huge commissions. The whole process was corrupt from bottom to top - as I said. You're apparently blaming the people who were buying houses that they (and the sellers assured them) thought could only go up in value while holding blameless the guys who faked the paperwork and oversold to unqualified buyers. When you have gullible buyers and unscrupulous sellers with zero oversight or business ethics, you have a recipe for disaster.

From what I can see up close and personal down here, it's not hispanics being evicted, it's anglos. The hispanics tend to move a dozen or so family members into these houses, and split the housing costs among them. You can generally tell the hispanic homes, they're spotless with a half dozen trucks out front. I guess you blame them for the mess if you want, but from what I can see here, they're doing quite well for themselves. This isn't a racial issue, it's an economic one. If it eases your mind to blame it all on 'those people', well, knock yourself out. But the simple fact is that greed ruled the day, the unscrupulous made a pile, and left the economy in a shambles. There's plenty of blame to go around for everyone in this debacle.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: SandySandfort on November 18, 2011, 08:51:27 am
You're fixated on 'hispanics'. Hate to tell you this, but while yes, a lot of them bought houses poorly, there were a lot of just regular folk...

I'm Hispanic (ta da!) and I am here to tell you that some of us are responsible and some of us aren't... just like any other identifiable ethnic group. We don't know what Sam is (well, actually we do, but I mean ethnically), but whatever it is, I bet I personally know members of that community that could never qualify for a bank loan under any rational lending policy. But as you correctly point out, Sieggy, it is always easier for the Sams of the world to scapegoat those people rather than actually deal with individuals as individuals. How sad.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 18, 2011, 12:48:58 pm
You're fixated on 'hispanics'. Hate to tell you this, but while yes, a lot of them bought houses poorly, there were a lot of just regular folk,

Not true.  Towards the end, absolutely no regular folk.

Towards the end, mid 2005 to early 2007, in Sunnyvale, a suburb that was mostly white, considerably less than one percent of those buying houses were white males with good English skills, very possibly zero white males with good English.

When prices reached unreasonable levels, white males with fluent English completely stopped buying, which suggests that if you were a white male with no credit rating and no assets, you were not in fact eligible for a no money down loan, even though theoretically lenders were not discriminating, loan officers must have been markedly less enthusiastic about faking up documents for white male English speaking borrowers.

If they had been as willing to fake up documents for white males, we would have seen some white male bums buying houses.

(Since a white male with no assets and no credit rating should be cheerfully willing to buy a house with a no money down mortgage at any price, particularly if he gets cashback under the table)

The foreclosure data indicates that the same was approximately true nation wide, in that the distribution of foreclosures by locality indicate ninety nine percent of foreclosures were non asian minority, though this has now fallen to ninety five percent.  You can check that yourself. 

The housing boom was primarily driven by a US government operation to move non asian minorities into the suburbs.

Towards the end, from some time in 2005 onwards, the housing boom was completely, 100% driven by a US government operation to move non asian minorities into the suburbs, in that few white English speaking males, possibly absolutely zero white English speaking males, were buying.

including a great many retirees who put their money in what they though were sure fire safe investments. The guy who lost his shirt on the house a couple of doors down was a canadian, not hispanic.

Why did he have to put money down, when others did have to?

If he lost his shirt, he must have put some money down.  The boom was driven by no money down loans, (because towards the end, no one would risk their own money on a house) To the best of my observation, Hispanics never put money down, and generally received cashback under the table.  If he put some money down, when Hispanics never put money down, that he lost money is evidence that the boom was driven by racially allocated loans, not evidence that it was not.

We had a crapload of people who bought second 'investment' homes here with their retirement money who are now greeters at Wal-Mart , working part time at 7-11s, and living on ramen noodles.

Really?

Why buy with your own money?  By 2005, no one was putting their own money at risk.

Further, your claim just does not fit with the distribution of foreclosures, which closely parallels the distribution of hispanics.

Again, if they lost their own money, when the boom was driven by no money down loans, that is evidence for racial allocation of loans, not evidence against it.

There was a LOT of english and german money here that got taken to the cleaners, too. A very great many of the people who were living in single-wides out in the woods got houses

Again, the redneck jokes.  By 2005, white English speaking males had completely dropped out of the market.  Zero or indistinguishable from zero.

Which indicates that if you were a white male with no job, no income, and no assets, you could not get a no money down loan for a million dollar house, while it is apparent that Hispanics could, and regularly did.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 18, 2011, 12:53:22 pm
Quote from: SandySandfort link=topic=637.msg17721#msg17721 I'm Hispanic ([i
ta da![/i]) and I am here to tell you that some of us are responsible and some of us aren't... just like any other identifiable ethnic group. We don't know what Sam is (well, actually we do, but I mean ethnically), but whatever it is, I bet I personally know members of that community that could never qualify for a bank loan under any rational lending policy.

And if they were white males, did not qualify.

By 2005, high prices excluded people with money at risk from buying houses.  So anyone who purchased a house, was a bum.  White bums could not buy houses.  No rednecks allowed.  So white English speaking males stopped purchasing houses, almost completely.

If affirmative action is in force, you can say on the basis of race that every single person who is grossly unqualified, despite being supposedly qualified, is of certain races.

The boom was driven by bums with no job, no assets, and no credit rating, who took out million dollar mortgages no money down.  And white males with no job no assets and no credit rating did not get million dollar mortgages no money down.

If white bums could have borrowed the way Hispanic bums could borrow, I am sure that they would have.  I saw none, zero, borrowing that way, from which I conclude that  they could not, so they did not.

This a general principle of affirmative action:  If you start letting people qualify on the basis of race, it always end up that 100% of those so qualified, are in fact unqualified, so that the effect of affirmative action turns a moderate difference into a complete100% difference.

White bums were excluded, Hispanic bums were allowed.  Thus no whites that were included were bums, and towards the end every Hispanic that was included was a bum, for in the end, (2005) only bums were buying houses, so everyone that was buying a house was non asian minority bum.  (I did see some seemingly white single females buying houses, even though white single females were not, so far as I know, targets of affirmative action lending, but no white english speaking males)

If you take a person at random from one race, and a person at random from another race, you cannot say on the basis of race that one person is good and the other no good.

When however, you take person selected not at random, but the product of affirmative action, you can say on the basis of race that the person qualified on the basis of affirmative action, is not qualified. 

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 18, 2011, 06:07:22 pm
When prices reached unreasonable levels, white males with fluent English completely stopped buying,

I exaggerated.  White males continued to purchase, though in smaller numbers, even after 2005.

However, as we saw in this thread, it is completely acceptable to display bigotry, hatred, and contempt to white males that are poor and/or rural and/or work with their hands, but totally unacceptable to mention that certain races, a certain gender, and certain sexual preferences to have undesirable characteristics.

From this one can easily predict that Hispanics with no job and no credit rating will be able to buy million dollar houses no money down, and that white males with no job and no credit rating will not be able to buy million dollar houses no money down.

And, since the crisis was driven by bums buying million dollar houses no money down, it follows, from the fact that it is socially acceptable in this thread to hate and despise white male bums, that none of the bums that caused the crisis were white males.

Though some of the buyers were white males (albeit a lot fewer after 2005) none of the buyers that were bums were white males.




which suggests that if you were a white male with no credit rating and no assets, you were not in fact eligible for a no money down loan, even though theoretically lenders were not discriminating, loan officers must have been markedly less enthusiastic about faking up documents for white male English speaking borrowers.

If they had been as willing to fake up documents for white males, we would have seen some white male bums buying houses.

(Since a white male with no assets and no credit rating should be cheerfully willing to buy a house with a no money down mortgage at any price, particularly if he gets cashback under the table)

The foreclosure data indicates that the same was approximately true nation wide, in that the distribution of foreclosures by locality indicate ninety nine percent of foreclosures were non asian minority, though this has now fallen to ninety five percent.  You can check that yourself. 

The housing boom was primarily driven by a US government operation to move non asian minorities into the suburbs.

Towards the end, from some time in 2005 onwards, the housing boom was completely, 100% driven by a US government operation to move non asian minorities into the suburbs, in that few white English speaking males, possibly absolutely zero white English speaking males, were buying.

including a great many retirees who put their money in what they though were sure fire safe investments. The guy who lost his shirt on the house a couple of doors down was a canadian, not hispanic.

Why did he have to put money down, when others did have to?

If he lost his shirt, he must have put some money down.  The boom was driven by no money down loans, (because towards the end, no one would risk their own money on a house) To the best of my observation, Hispanics never put money down, and generally received cashback under the table.  If he put some money down, when Hispanics never put money down, that he lost money is evidence that the boom was driven by racially allocated loans, not evidence that it was not.

We had a crapload of people who bought second 'investment' homes here with their retirement money who are now greeters at Wal-Mart , working part time at 7-11s, and living on ramen noodles.

Really?

Why buy with your own money?  By 2005, no one was putting their own money at risk.

Further, your claim just does not fit with the distribution of foreclosures, which closely parallels the distribution of hispanics.

Again, if they lost their own money, when the boom was driven by no money down loans, that is evidence for racial allocation of loans, not evidence against it.

There was a LOT of english and german money here that got taken to the cleaners, too. A very great many of the people who were living in single-wides out in the woods got houses

Again, the redneck jokes.  By 2005, white English speaking males had completely dropped out of the market.  Zero or indistinguishable from zero.

Which indicates that if you were a white male with no job, no income, and no assets, you could not get a no money down loan for a million dollar house, while it is apparent that Hispanics could, and regularly did.

[/quote]
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Sieggy on November 19, 2011, 08:55:30 pm
Wow, dude, you have major issues . . .  So let me get this straight. According to you, the whole housing bubble was the result of a diabolical plot on the part of the gov't to flood white neighborhoods with minorities. Greed and shortsightedness across the entire spectrum had nothing to do with it, market manipulation had nothing to do with it, aggressive and deceptive marketing had nothing to do with it, banks and brokers originating patently unrealistic mortgages had nothing to do with it, banks packaging bogus notes then paying a rating agency to rate them AAA and peddling them on the market had nothing to do with it, investment brokers taking out CDOs on what they knew were garbage packages and betting they would fail had nothing to do with it, flooding the international markets with toxic junk bonds had nothing to do with it, because it was all a gov't plot to move a mexican in next door to you. It was evil hispanics manipulating the system that were responsible because they were so sophisticated about the ins and outs of real estate fraud.

Ummmm . . . OK, yeah, sure. 

I'm terribly sorry, I have discussions with rational people. You, sadly, are not among them. I'm quite sure that like Sandy, I know exactly what you are, and as a general rule, I don't permit people like you in my universe. So please feel free to bay at the moon, feel all victimized, and rant about the plots around you to your heart's delight. I will simply regard your subsequent posts as unintended humor and chuckle sadly at you.

Oh, and my statements regarding dumbass redneck has to do with the number of the aforementioned dumbass rednecks I tried to warn about what they were getting into, and that no, housing values would NOT keep going up in value indefinitely. That despite their broker's assurances, they would NOT be able to 'refinance at a lower rate' down the line, and that when those teaser rates ran out, their payments would shoot up astronomically. Being a charitable soul, for the most part, I have refrained from telling these dolts 'I told you so'. Except for a couple who were exceptionally nasty about how I was an idiot who didn't know what I was talking about so I could go to hell, mind you . . .
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 20, 2011, 02:56:24 am
Wow, dude, you have major issues . . .  So let me get this straight. According to you, the whole housing bubble was the result of a diabolical plot on the part of the gov't to flood white neighborhoods with minorities.

Rather, the rationale was that if you give minorities mortgages and suburban houses, they will become middle class and, in a middle class environment, would start to display all the middle class virtues.  Same theory as section eight housing and busing.  Since section eight housing and busing conspicuously and spectacularly failed, the obvious solution was to try even harder.

Greed and shortsightedness across the entire spectrum had nothing to do with it, market manipulation had nothing to do with it, aggressive and deceptive marketing had nothing to do with it,

Where is the deception?  A bum buys a million dollar house no money down with cashback under the table.  If it goes up, he flips it and cashes out, if it goes down, he gets to live in it rent free till evicted.  Either way he wins.

Where is the greed?  Are you telling me that when The Bank of Beverly hills was told by the regulators to make "innovative" loans to under served minorities, which "innovative" loans to under served minorities sent it bankrupt, the regulators were telling it to be greedy?

banks and brokers originating patently unrealistic mortgages had nothing to do with it, banks packaging bogus notes then paying a rating agency to rate them AAA and peddling them on the market had nothing to do with it,

The government, not the ratings agencies, issued white paper after white paper explaining why these loans were safe.  Who were the ratings agencies to disagree?

 
Oh, and my statements regarding dumbass redneck has to do with the number of the aforementioned dumbass rednecks I tried to warn about what they were getting into,

Liar.

You are speaking out of hatred, bigotry, and ignorance.

Because your ignorance and hatred is socially approved and high status, low income, low credit rating whites, "rednecks", were not given loans.

Rednecks could not buy million dollar houses no money down, as Hispanics could, and if they had been able to do so, it would have been great for them.  House goes up they flip it, house goes down, they get to live their free.

In your home town, you know, or can easily find out, what areas are white, and what areas are predominantly non asian minority.

Look up foreclosures on Trulia.com

You will observe the foreclosures are where the non asian minorities are.

It is at once obvious, that our economic crisis, is primarily a crisis of affirmative action, that nearly all the foreclosures, are foreclosures on non asian minorities - the recipients of no money down mortgages.

Find me a foreclosure on a redneck.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Sieggy on November 20, 2011, 02:14:09 pm
Sigh. You'd think by now I'd have learned not to feed trolls, but what the hell . . .

I don't know where you're getting your facts, though I strongly suspect they're of the "alter the facts to fit the narrative" persuasion, who will tell you exactly what you are predisposed to hear . . .

Let's see . . . I personally know of around a dozen fools who bit hard on the teaser rate mortgages, and got their clocks cleaned when their payments jumped from about $600 a month to close to $1,500. Or more. Considerably more, if they missed a payment or two. Several of them I helped move from their old digs to their new ones, and then out back again. If I added up the ones I know about from others, probably several dozen local yokels who got whipsawed when the housing market went south.

My Kiwanis club runs a thrift store, and most of our customers aren't hispanic (which is not to say that there aren't a fair number), they're local good ol' boys (and gals). Most of the people we deliver food baskets to aren't hispanic, they're retirees who are scraping by, barely. Many of them I tried warning that they were being suckered, but it all just sounded SO good, SO plausible - I mean, EVERYONE knew that housing prices would NEVER come down, and this was their shot at the American Dream. These are the same people who only paid the minimum on their credit card payments, and whenever they'd bump up against their limit, the credit card companies were obliging enough to raise them . . . And when things got tight, what the hell, they'd just get another card.

Fella, ANYONE with a beating heart and the ability to make a mark on a piece of paper could get into a house near the end of the bubble. White, black, brown, fuchsia, paisley, it didn't matter. If a broker or salesman wanted to make his (or her) monthly numbers and get that fat, juicy commission check at the end of the month, they would pass off whatever line of BS was necessary to do so. Race was NOT an issue, as much as you'd prefer it to be. We had several brokers down here get busted for originating totally bogus mortgages and just pocketing the money. Seriously, it was crazy.

And not everything was a NINJA loan - there were an awful lot of people who did it right, paid the 20% down, and then lost their shirts when the $500K house they bought 2 years ago was suddenly worth only $300K . . . and dropping fast. The canadian who bought the house down the way is still making payments on a house that's only worth a third of what he paid, and the rental he's getting doesn't even come close to making his payments or his property taxes.

I guess it just makes you feel better if the problems we're having is all the fault of the evil commie gov't with their socialist Affirmative Action and all them damned furriners. It wasn't. This was a perfect storm of greed, incompetence,  wishful thinking, deliberate blindness, and the same kind of general stupidity that humans engage in with great regularity. I suggest you read "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" for an historical perspective. This wasn't 'them', this was 'us'. Well, not me, I saw this one coming a mile off (housing bubbles in Florida are as regular as hurricanes) and didn't dance the dance that was so seductive to others.

And I guess it's my "ignorance and hatred" that causes me to volunteer 15 - 20 hours a week to various church, Kiwanis, and Rotary projects trying to help people who are up against it. Tell ya what, guy, turn off the AM radio, go out there and do something to help your fellow man instead of fulminating against 'those' people. I guarantee you, you'll feel batter about yourself and perhaps release some of that bitterness and bile from your heart.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 20, 2011, 11:58:55 pm
I don't know where you're getting your facts,

From official documents issued by the regulators back when they were causing the crisis, which documents I have repeatedly cited, from the claims made in lawsuits over dud mortgages, which I cited earlier but have not recited recently, from direct observation of numerous borrowers, and from the distribution of foreclosures within the bay area.

The basic fact that you are ignoring is that the money disappeared by people gambling the real estate market with the bank's money.  First, recognize that fact, then ask why the banks let it happen.

Then, since the money was pissed away on dud mortages, look to see who took out these mortgages, and subsequently defaulted on them.

Everyone who gambled on the real estate market with other people's money is not a victim, but a robber.  And most of these robbers are black or hispanic, as is revealed by searching for foreclosures, and observing where the foreclosures are, and where they are not.

Because of too big to fail, the banks have insufficient incentive to lend responsibly.  So the regulators substitute themselves for the judgement of bankers.  The regulators lack expertise and have bad incentives - they have no incentive to worry about longer term risks, and have an active incentive to command money to be lent to the politically well connected, and to particular voting blocks.

If one looks at the geographic distribution of foreclosures, it is evident that the the overwhelming majority of foreclosures are on homes purchased by blacks and hispanics, indicating that the largest cause of the crisis was affirmative action lending, loans to the black and hispanic voter blocks.  This is also evident in the histories of particular banks.

In my direct personal observation, every single borrower purchasing a house purchased the house no money down.  Since everyone knew the market was overpriced, purchasing a house no money down, thereby avoiding any risk of your own money, was the obvious way to go, and since, manifestly it was possible to do it, we should be unsurprised that people did it - I personally observed people doing what the overwhelming incentive was to do.

Let's see . . . I personally know of around a dozen fools who bit hard on the teaser rate mortgages, and got their clocks cleaned when their payments jumped from about $600 a month to close to $1,500.

$1500 a month is a reasonable charge to pay off a house.  They are not having their clocks cleaned.  That sounds like a pretty fair rate to me.  The problem, however, is the guy who purchased a million dollar house no money down, with no job, no assets and no credit, and whose payments would therefore be $4000 - $6000 a month.

It is the guy with the million dollar loan that caused most of the money to disappear.  The guy paying $1500 is paying what he damn well should pay.  He is whining because he got a favorable deal, and now no longer gets a favorable deal.  Much like the kid with the hundred thousand dollars in college debt:  No one lied to him, no one robbed him, no one overcharged him.  What is he complaining about?

Is the guy with the $1500 mortgage now paying above market rates?  Perhaps he is.  If he is, why does he not refinance?

Oh?  He cannot refinance BECAUSE HE PUT NO MONEY DOWN!    Sounds like he was gambling on real estate with other people's money, which is to say, my money.

If someone has a problem when the teaser rate ends, his only problem is that he was gambling with other people's money and failed to get lucky - which usually means in practice that the bank loses, rather than him.  And the bank was up for that, because when the bank loses, the bank does not lose, instead the taxpayer loses.

The wrong is not that he lost, the wrong is that he is allowed to gamble with other people's money.

The man who gambles on the real estate market with other people's money is not the victim, but the robber.

And the great majority of these robbers, the great majority of those that gambled on the real estate market whilst putting little or no money of their own at risk, were black or hispanic.  Doubltess there were plenty of whites who would have played, but the deal was primarily marketed to hispanics.

They took a bet with unlimited upside and limited downside.  That eventually everyone hit the downside is not "getting their clocks cleaned".  When you bet on the roulette wheel, sometimes it comes up black, and sometimes it comes up red, but if you get unlimited profit on red, and limited loss on black, cannot complain when after a long series of reds, it eventually comes up black.

If you have no credit rating to lose, buying houses no money down was a great deal, even though sooner or later it was going to come up bad..  Everyone whose credit rating is not worth protecting should have taken it, but, if you look at where the defaults are, somehow, the overwhelming majority of those that got that great deal, were black or hispanic - particularly after 2005 November.

If I added up the ones I know about from others, probably several dozen local yokels who got whipsawed when the housing market went south.

And a lot more got rich when it was heading North.  They were gambling with other people's money, with my money, thus, big gains, small losses.  Heads they win, tails I lose.  If we sold the losers into debt slavery and had them work under the lash, they would have refrained from gambling.

One can tell how many got whipsawed when the market went south by looking up foreclosure sales in your own city - whereupon it is obvious that number of foreclosure sales in a location is proportional to the number of blacks and hispanics in that location.  That quite a few whites got in on the deal that was created for blacks and hispanics and primarily marketed to blacks and hispanics is akin to the fact that these days, computer science classes do not really teach programming to either males or females.  That computer science has largely stopped teaching programming is, however, to accommodate the females, not the males, and similarly, the mortgage deal that some whites got was not really intended for them, and for the most part, it was not whites that got it.

There were other corrupt deals, particularly those got packaged as CMBS, that were intended primarily for white folks, but the most money was pissed away in regular mortgages, in which standards were lowered largely for race conscious reasons, just as computer science standards are lowered for gender conscious reasons.

My Kiwanis club runs a thrift store, and most of our customers aren't hispanic (which is not to say that there aren't a fair number), they're local good ol' boys (and gals). Most of the people we deliver food baskets to aren't hispanic, they're retirees who are scraping by, barely. Many of them I tried warning that they were being suckered, but it all just sounded SO good, SO plausible - I mean, EVERYONE knew that housing prices would NEVER come down

Untrue: the location of foreclosures, which we can both look up quite easily, shows this to be false,  Few poor white people gambled on the housing boom - because the banks looked at them and rightly sneered, much as you are wrongly sneering.  It is socially acceptable to sneer at poor whites, and especially poor white males, so it was easy for the banks to turn away deadbeat whites, especially deadbeat white males, and for the most part, they did, while they could get in deep trouble turning away deadbeat blacks and hispanics. If a trailer park is pretty much white, (and trailer parks tend to be all hispanic or all white), there are few or no foreclosures in it.

Quite a few affluent white people gambled on the housing boom, and some of them became a lot less affluent because their bets went wrong and they failed to bail at the right moment, but they are not the ones that are costing me money. Most of them are hurting, but still affluent.

Fella, ANYONE with a beating heart and the ability to make a mark on a piece of paper could get into a house near the end of the bubble.

Theoretically this is true, and yet, somehow all the deadbeats that I observed getting loans were Hispanic, and the number of foreclosures in a location is closely proportional to the number of blacks and Hispanics in that location.  The people I saw aggressively marketing these loans spoke Spanish, and marketed them to people who spoke Spanish.  These loans were theoretically available to anyone, but in practice, they were created for, and primarily marketed to, blacks and Hispanics.

If you had no credit rating and no money, and were white, and applied for one of these loans, you would often somehow find it strangely difficult for one reason and another reason, despite the loud proclamations that no credit rating or money was required.  The old rules were theoretically suspended for everyone, but in practice, were suspended more for some people than for other people - because, you see, it is socially acceptable to sneer at poor whites, especially poor white males.

White, black, brown, fuchsia, paisley, it didn't matter.

Theoretically it did not matter, yet strangely, somehow, in practice, all the no good bums that I saw receiving million dollar loans back then just  somehow happened to be Hispanic, and today when I look up foreclosures on the real estate web sites, the foreclosures are overwhelmingly in neighborhoods that are distinctly on the brown or the black side, and the browner the location is, the more foreclosures it has.  If you were a white bum, no one wanted to talk to you.

Indeed a white could get one of these loans, but for a white to get one of these loans, it helped a lot if you had the right connection, which of course a poor white would seldom have.  Your loan officer made these loans happen, and he could be helpful, or less helpful.  And poor white males tend to find that people are unhelpful.

If a broker or salesman wanted to make his (or her) monthly numbers and get that fat, juicy commission check at the end of the month, they would pass off whatever line of BS was necessary to do so. Race was NOT an issue,

Race was most certainly an issue, as is evident in the CRA compliance reports, as is evident in the effort, energy, and thought that every banker applied to CRA compliance issues, and as is evident in the distribution of mortgage defaults by neighborhood.  The bank of Beverly Hills was forced by the regulators, kicking and screaming, very much against their will, dragging their feet the whole way, into making loans to poor Hispanics, which loans sent them broke.

Washington Mutual, on the other hand, was genuinely and sincerely enthusiastic about making loans to blacks and Hispanics, specifically to blacks and Hispanics in particular, which loans also sent them broke.

The US banks think about race all the time, every minute, the way a teenage boy thinks about sex, the way an academic in science, maths, and engineering thinks about gender ratios.

Of course, European banks also had political lending, though European political lending was seldom about race, nonetheless politics was in every breath they breathed, for European bankers as for US bankers.  Basel means that finance is all politics, all the time, and in the US, politics is in substantial part racial politics.

And not everything was a NINJA loan - there were an awful lot of people who did it right, paid the 20% down, and then lost their shirts

They lost their shirts, but they are not the ones that lost my shirt.[/quote]

When people lose their own shirts, that is an inherently self correcting problem.  When they lose other people's shirts, they are apt to repeat the performance.

Indeed, this is why the economy cannot recover.  Businessmen fear that they will be made to pay for someone else's problems, as, for example, GM's creditors were sacrificed to benefit GM's unions, and the depositors of MF Global were sacrificed to save Greece.

I guess it just makes you feel better if the problems we're having is all the fault of the evil commie gov't with their socialist Affirmative Action and all them damned furriners. It wasn't.

It was:

What is screwing the economy:

1. Unpaid mortgages:  Observe, is mostly furriners, most of them Hispanic, many of them illegal immigrants, that are not paying their mortgages.   Observe where the foreclosures are, and it is not hard to figure out who it is that is not paying.

2 Suspension of the rule of law in favor of General Motors unions:  The creditors of GM were robbed, sending the fear of Obama into businessmen all over the US, robbed for the sake of the Union pension fund, which these days pays out to mostly black pensioners and mostly white union activists.

3 MF Global:  Depositors robbed to protect Greece, again sending fear of Obama throughout US business.  Greeks are definitely furriners, and indeed are lazy no good furriners sponging on welfare and government jobs.

I suggest you read "Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" for an historical perspective.

That book describes bubbles in which people lose their own money.  This was a bubble in which people primarily lost other people's money, in particular, my money, and the money of the kind of businessmen who create value, rather than trade in political connections.

A bubble in which people lose other people's money is necessary a political bubble, a madness and delusion of the political class, not a madness and delusion of the capitalist class.

The delusion in question being that giving non asian minorities mortgages that they did not deserve would make them middle class, even though busing had failed to make them middle class, and section eight housing had failed to make them middle class.

In Europe, they also have a delusion, the delusion in their case being that they can print money to pay people to neither fight nor work, and the money will still be worth something.  Recall what Rudyard Kipling had to say about this delusion.  In both the US and Europe, there is a bubble in government bonds and paper money, but their bubble is closer to bursting than ours.

This wasn't 'them', this was 'us'.

I saw who it was.  It was them.  And when you look at where the foreclosures are, it is still them.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Sieggy on November 21, 2011, 09:32:40 am
Yup, shouldn't 'av fed the troll . . .

I think this is a case of you seeing what you want to see, and me seeing what's there. I don't have an ideological lens through which to filter reality, no axe to grind, no fingers to point, other than my contention that pretty much everyone was sucking at the teat and that there's plenty of blame to go around. As long as the milk flowed freely, everyone was happy. But sooner or later, the teat runs dry, and if you continue to suckle, you go from suckling milk to draining life's blood . . . You want to blame the gov't and brown people because, I strongly suspect, they're the ones you blame for every conceivable ill society faces to begin with. And no, I don't care to hear a recitation of your paranoia.

From your perspective, all this came about through nefarious gov't scheming, socialist social engineering, and ne'er do well minorities working the system, victimizing the poor, unsuspecting banking, securities, and real estate industries. All innocent, guileless babes in the woods, taken advantage of by those awful scheming brown people and their evil socialist accomplices. From my perspective, this was just another housing bubble which because of the elimination of laws specifically designed to prevent what happened from happening, the avarice of everyone who stood to make a fast buck, and the inability of people with their lips wrapped around a teat to see the consequences of their action, got way out of hand. Or a simple indifference to the consequences, which amounts to the same thing. My personal feeling is that we got way too clever for our own good, too adept at shuffling numbers and creating wealth out of thin air by pretending the number shuffling had a reality outside of a piece of paper.

The reason no one could refinance is that no one was refinancing. If you're underwater on your house, no lender will touch you. The banks who originated the mortgages, for the most part, had packaged and resold them, so they were in no position to do so. One of the major problems that people have had in trying to keep their homes is that it's virtually impossible to follow the labyrinthine trail of speculators to find out who actually held their notes . . . even the local county tax people threw up their hands in despair trying to figure out who held what. There are numerous abandoned properties for whom the county cannot find the owners to cite them for code violations.

I think the difference between you and I is that you ascribe to malice, social engineering, and chicanery what I ascribe to stupidity, shortsightedness, and chicanery. If it makes you feel better to think that the people you obviously detest to begin with are behind it all, well, enjoy your hate. If it's all you've got, I suppose you may as well make the best of it. I, on the other hand, am more concerned with helping people who are the victims of this debacle survive and recover. I would like very much to see regulations put back in place to prevent a repetition of this fiasco, but I have severe doubts about the competence of those responsible for doing so.

Oh, and you also seem to have this fixation on 'million dollar homes'. Sorry, but most of the homes down here that were of the 'get in free' variety tended to be in the $150k - $350k range (though it went really crazy there at the end), homes that ten years before the bubble had been going for $40K - $75K. The homes in my neighborhood were priced higher because I'm on an island, and the island was built out decades ago. No crackerbox developments here, though the inflated prices were even more spectacular because of the proximity to water. There was no huge hispanic influx on the island, but still a very great many speculators (a very large percentage of them being canadian and european) lost their shirts when the bubble burst. In 2006, the assessed market value on my home (not taxable value, though, thank god . . .) was $615K. According to the tax notice I got last month, the assessed value is now $163K. When we bought the house back in '66, we paid $26.5K . . .

The ones who made money on this weren't the buyers, it was the brokers, bankers, builders, developers, the speculators who got in early and had the sense to get out before the bubble burst, and all the little side businesses that benefited from the boom. Like carpet dealers, furniture stores, landscapers, you name it that have been dropping like flies here. Smart money got out early, but to be honest, not that many did. So when the bubble burst, it took all of them down in flames as well. You seem to think that the ones who made out like bandits were the buyers. I'm sorry, but simply looking at the physical situation they're now in shows them as being the ones who got wiped out. People who profited from this bubble are not sleeping in their cars or in tent cities.

The only difference between this bubble and all the preceding ones is that it spread nationally, and this time rather than the banks holding the notes like they used to, the junk mortgages were repackaged, mislabeled, marketed as sure-fire quality investments, and the toxic sludge was spread worldwide.

Believe what you like. I see the results of the greed and shortsightedness of pretty much all involved, whereas you see a nefarious plot. To you, it's all about race because that's what you want to see. Sorry, I'm here actually dealing with this shit. I'm seeing up close and personal the people affected, and it's not all minorities, it's ordinary folks of all ages and social strata who were ruined by this disaster as well. Of the people we help, maybe a third are minorities. I see what's happening from physically being here, being directly involved with the fallout of this mess. I don't get information from websites who feed your prejudices and lay the blame on people you obviously don't like to begin with. I'm trying to help people get through this. What are you doing . . ?
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 21, 2011, 11:56:42 pm
I think this is a case of you seeing what you want to see, and me seeing what's there.

According to you, people lost their own money.  But the state of the national accounts shows that people lost other people's money

When people lose their own money, it is investors making errors.  When people lose other people's money, it is government doing evil.

According to you, a white bum with no assets, no income, and no credit rating could buy a million dollar house no money down as easily as an hispanic bum with no assets, no income, and no credit rating could buy a million dollar house no money down, and frequently did so.  But if you search for foreclosures on the real estate websites, the foreclosures are where Hispanics and blacks are, and not where poor whites are, indicating the economic crisis is, within America, primarily a crisis of affirmative action, though other forms of socialism also contributed, as with GM and MF Global.

You are unable to see what is glaringly obvious if you look up foreclosures on the real estate sites, unable to see what is glaringly obvious if you read the bureaucrats sending letters threatening banks and pressuring them to make dodgy race based loans http://www2.fdic.gov/crapes/2007/32069_071001.pdf (http://www2.fdic.gov/crapes/2007/32069_071001.pdf)

I don't have an ideological lens through which to filter reality, no axe to grind,

And yet you chant the the standard folk Marxist formulae, as if they were holy prayers and divinely revealed truth.  You sound like someone with an ideological axe to grind - you sound like someone who lives and breathes the official line day in and day out, so that tired old slogans become a reflexive substitute for speech and thought.  You sound like someone who has spent a lot of time filling out the political requirements for admission to an elite university, and has started to think like the sort of person one must pretend to be in order gain admission, who has pretended so deeply to the politics that university admission officers look for, that the pretense is sinking in and becoming real.

"White, black, brown, fuchsia, paisley, it didn't matter."  Can anyone say that with a straight face? Perhaps if your face twitches when you say it, you will fail your interview.  Race and gender matters all the time everywhere, matters more than anything else, and if you forget it for a moment when you are at work or dealing with academic authorities, that moments lapse can destroy your career.

Such a bizarrely unreal statement - you might as well be chanting "power to the people" - and three decades ago, your equivalent was chanting "power to the people".

It is obvious you have received a lot of training in PC, which requires you to be intensely mindful of race and gender and sexual preference all the time everywhere. And then you tell me race is irrelevant!

You could seriously and rationally argue that racial preferences were not a large factor in the loans crisis, and then we could start looking at various statistics to assess the impact of racial preferences, but to piously assert that "White, black, brown, fuchsia, paisley, it didn't matter", as if this assertion was entirely unsurprising and perfectly believable, indicates detachment from reality and the mindlessly rigid regurgitation of official propaganda, indicates a training in PC that runs so deep as to resemble the effects of brain damage or a stroke.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  That race "did not matter", is an extraordinary claim, particularly when we have no end of threatening letters from the regulators to the banks telling the banks that it did matter a great deal, particularly when we have no end of loud political posturing from 1994 to 2006 or so that the banks were being wickedly racist in failing to give blacks and Hispanics as many loans as those poor victims deserved.

You would be better off with the official story, that there was just a teensy weensy little little bit of affirmative action, far too tiny to matter, but to blandly say "race did not matter" is just ludicrous, the PC reflex overriding basic sanity.

You don't sound like someone with no axe to grind.  You sound like the sort of person that everyone pretends to be when they solicit admission to an elite university, as if you had put so much thought and energy into that pretense, that it is hard to shed it for a different pretense.

my contention that pretty much everyone was sucking at the teat

We can tell who was allowed to suck at the teat by looking at the distribution of foreclosures on the real estate sites.

We can also read documents issued by the regulators commanding banks to supply the teat to particular groups.

Since this was a matter of gambling with other people's money it was a matter of politics.  Next question.  

What then was the politics?  

Why, it was the politics that was shouted from the rooftops loud and clear all the way from 1994 up to 2007 - that banks were "racist" in withholding loans, which "racism" was the subject of no end of political and regulatory measures.

Well, I hear you ask, if it was lending to Hispanics and blacks that sent the US bust, what is sending the Eurozone bust?

To answer that question, ask where MF Global's money went.

From your perspective, all this came about through nefarious gov't scheming, socialist social engineering, and ne'er do well minorities working the system, victimizing the poor, unsuspecting banking, securities, and real estate industries.

They suspected that if they allowed themselves to be victimized, they would be bailed out.

But yes, some of them, notably the bank of Beverly Hills and Lehman brothers, really were victimized.  What, tell me, did the Bank of Beverly Hills do wrong?

All innocent, guileless babes in the woods, taken advantage of by those awful scheming brown people and their evil socialist accomplices.

When I see a bum with no job and no assets, who cannot speak English, buy a million dollar house no money down, yes he is an awful scheming brown person.

Somewhat similarly, you see black gangs randomly beat up random white people out of racial hate.  You don't see white gangs randomly beat up random black people out of racial hate.  This is a pretty obvious fact of reality, and denial just reveals you blinded by dogma to an extent that sounds like brain damage.  

Certain bad deeds and incompetent deeds really are characteristic of certain racial groups.  You don't lend money to Mexicans, regardless of whether you are white or Mexican, and you don't withdraw money from an ATM with a couple of black men standing behind you, regardless whether you are white or black.

And anyone who piously says he does not worry about the race of the guy standing behind him at the ATM lies.  Mexicans won't lend money to other Mexicans, just as black taxi drivers fail to pick up black passengers.  Why should I have to lend to Mexicans?

And women don't like women bosses any more than men like women bosses.

If a Mexican is borrowing a million dollars, yes, chances are that he really is a nefarious brown man.

As with section eight housing, the whole point and purpose of the program was that by putting Mexicans in a middle class sort of environment, they would develop middle class virtues, which implicitly admits what is explicitly denied:  That Mexicans frequently lack middle class virtues.

From my perspective, this was just another housing bubble which because of the elimination of laws specifically designed to prevent what happened from happening

And what laws, tell me, were these?

What laws were there to prevent banks from making million dollar loans to bums?

I can quote you the regulators telling Beverly Hills bank to lower its standards in order to make more loans to Hispanics.  Where was the law that told banks to maintain their standards that the wicked free marketers repealed?

I think the difference between you and I is that you ascribe to malice, social engineering, and chicanery what I ascribe to stupidity, shortsightedness, and chicanery.

The difference is that you are chanting by rote the political correct formulae of official truth, regardless of whether they make sense in context, or are indeed relevant to the present context, whereas I keep invoking the actual facts of what happened.

Again, where was this law that told banks to maintain their standards?  What laws were repealed that somehow caused the financial crisis?  How were these laws preventing the crisis, and how did repealing them contribute to the crisis?

You don't know, and you don't care.  You are not observing reality, but mechanically chanting formulaic ideology.

You say you observe reality, but somehow you neglected to observe these laws.

Today in America is like 1980 in the Soviet Union.  Everyone says they believe, but no one actually believes, and those who preach the ideology believe less than anyone.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: Sieggy on November 22, 2011, 08:00:50 am
Wow. My dear fellow, I'm glad we don't live in the same universe, yours is a dark and scary place. I'm sure you're terribly oppressed and victimized all the time because you're a white guy. My deepest sympathies.

What we have is a difference in perspective. I'm in the real world dealing with real people with real problems and trying to give them real help. You, I strongly suspect, spend many hours alone in front of a computer seeking confirmation of your victimhood with AM radio and / or Fox news running constantly. Have fun with that. I find it amusing that when anyone has the temerity to disagree with you, you immediately leap to ad hominum attacks and ascribe an ideological bias. This behavior seems to be de rigueur for people who filter their information to a pre-determined conclusion.

FYI, I was a Young Republican (given a certain variability in the notion of 'young', mind you) until the mid 90s when the GOP started going crazy, and I left the party . . . as did most of the intelligent, rational conservatives who were repelled by its increasingly strident, bizarre, and intolerant behavior. I watched in despair as the once proud party of civil, rational conservatism was taken over by fundamentalists, race baiters (like yourself) and John Birchers who are now dedicated to the razing of the government and are willing to destroy the national economy to that end. Were the Republican party to shake off its madness and return to the core values for once it once stood, I would be more than happy to return to the fold . . . but sadly, the fever of hate is raging bright in the party, and I will not be a party to its madness.

Enough. As I said before, I have discussions with rational people. Bigots, by definition, are not rational, as their perception of reality is warped by the hatred through which they view the world. Hatred is irrational and corrosive. And as I also said before, I don't permit people like you in my universe. Your racism is very repugnant to me, and to be very honest, I should have known better than attempt to engage a troll in civil discourse. So I will not keep you any longer from your dark, despairing universe, please excuse me while I go out where it's brighter.

~End of Thread~
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 22, 2011, 04:20:58 pm
What we have is a difference in perspective. I'm in the real world

If you were in the real world, you would not make dogmatic ideological chants that no normal person can make with an entirely straight face.   Everyone says this stuff, but they smirk somewhat, or make quote marks in the air, when they say it.   Political correctness has jumped the shark.

dealing with real people with real problems and trying to give them real help.

Yet strangely, you hate and despise those real people that you are supposedly trying to help.

You earlier said:

From my perspective, this was just another housing bubble which because of the elimination of laws specifically designed to prevent what happened from happening

If you were in the real world, rather than some bizarre fanatical ideological fantasy, you would be able to tell me what these laws were.

What laws, tell me, were these?

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: ContraryGuy on November 23, 2011, 01:23:39 am
What we have is a difference in perspective. I'm in the real world

Sieggy, now you see why I gave up trying to talk to sam.  I have figured out that sam is a hispanic male either living in or was living in Beverly Hills at the time of the collapse.
This explains his fixation with "million-dollar" houses, and the Beverly Hills Bank.

It is well know to psycho-analysts that any person who espouses such utter hatred toward a group of people is a member of that group, but wishes they werent.

sam was at one point either a manager at or investor in the Beverly Hills Bank.  It is possible that he was a higher-up executive, but it is unlikely.

He did say that his information on foreclosures was obtained from the website Trulia, through Google searches and "from the Internet."
It is reassuring to know that everything one reads on the Internet is true, accurate and unbiased.

Trulia is a real-estate website that, like Zillow, allows you to see an overview of the real estate market in your (or anyone elses) neighborhood.
Having used Zillow to look at my own house(which gave an appraised value of 50% more than its original purchase price, after the housing collapse), I know how accurate Zillows, and by extension, Trulia's, information is.

And of course, being a troll (and possibly a corporate paid one), he cannot stand to lose an argument; knowing that if he does, they will come and take away his troll card.
Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: sam on November 23, 2011, 12:40:00 pm
Sieggy, now you see why I gave up trying to talk to sam.


Observe that both of you are playing out of Alinsky playbook:  Ignore the issues, ignore the data, and make personal attacks.

I provide evidence, you guys provide insults, which tactic implicitly admits what is denied:  That the financial crisis was caused by regulators pressuring the banks to make dud loans to the politically favored, and, that in the US, most of the money was lost on loans to non asian minorities, typically no money down loans to cat eating no-hablo-english wetbacks.

And, since regulators are still pressuring financial institutions to lend politically (most recent example being Obama's pal at MF Global robbing his depositors to help bail out Greek rioters attached to the tit of the state) we continue to get financial crises, which continue to gum up the economy.

As the welfare state escalates the payouts, while making ever more unfulfillable promises, we will see more and bigger financial crises.

The left is like a heroin addict.  They need an ever bigger underclass to vote them the appearance of legitimate authority, but they are running out of other people's money to pay that underclass, which basic insolvency keeps showing up in one place after another.  The basic cause of all these financial crises is that we just cannot afford all these bums, neither the Greek rioters, nor the unemployed Mexicans. 

Wherever there is financial crisis, ask where the money went: 

Well it went on mortgages and Greek bonds and such like

And why are Greek bonds and US mortgage backed securities worthless?

And the answer is always: the money was pissed away to buy an underclass.

Title: Re: AnCap and not getting poisoned by what goes down your throat.. or whatever.
Post by: quadibloc on November 24, 2011, 12:09:05 pm
It is well know to psycho-analysts that any person who espouses such utter hatred toward a group of people is a member of that group, but wishes they werent.
Sometimes. I don't think it works 100% of the time even when the "group" is homosexuals; some people just take the Bible literally.

When it comes to rich people with homes in Beverly Hills, if all it took to be rich was to be a believer in left-wing demagogic politics, then beggars would ride, because wishes would be horses. The psychological principle would have to be satisfied by substituting "greedy" for "rich", at the least.