Tab Content
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-25-2017, 04:46 PM
    We don't need laws...people will do the right thing!
    72 replies | 1066 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-22-2017, 09:02 PM
    Food stamps...yes, that is the reason why private net worth has nearly doubled in the past eight years...
    3 replies | 146 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-21-2017, 03:45 PM
    To be fair, Friedman's original theory has generally fallen out of favour since the 2001 and 2008 crashes, where companies that had seemed to model this idea failed, and many pursued short-term shareholder value in a destructive way. Friedman assumed a kind of self-correcting, idealized market that really hasn't existed. He ignored a lot of the real human factors(self-serving managers, a compliant board of directors, ineffective government regulators, uninformed shareholders, optimistic bond holders). Still, shareholder value theory is the best idea out there, just not in the clean-cut way Friedman presented it out to be. I do think that we are seeing markets evolve in a very slow way to the issues outlined above.
    7 replies | 297 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-19-2017, 02:15 AM
    Bob Murphy's predictive record has been horrible in the past eight years, and over the last two decades, it has been very bad. Scott Sumner ripped him to shred a few years ago, and it was quite well-deserved. I really don't like the format of the presentation either. Woods somewhat strawman's nGDP targeting and market monetarism, and then proceeds to tear it down. The thing is, I'm not sure if Woods and Murphy strawman monetarism because of their ideological biases, or because they are too lazy to put the work into truly understanding the theory (and maybe they are afraid they'll become converts if they do).
    5 replies | 464 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-19-2017, 01:58 AM
    From the studies I have seen regarding wealth, Trump is fairly wealthy, but there are caveats: 1) He isn't at anywhere close to his claimed 10 billion in wealth. 2) It all comes from like two real estate properties. Many of his other real estate holding, not to mention his other business ventures, have been a disaster. Hard to seem like a good businessman when it seems like you "got lucky" with one or two investments. 3) Moreover, he has a cash flow issues (since so many of his investments haven't returned positive cash flows, and much of his net worth is tied up in the price of real estate, meaning future cash flows from a sale). It may be that he's been borrowing and taking debt off his net worth for a long time, and that is embarrassing. 4) Where is the debt from? His tax returns may indicate that "Russia" lent him money, or that he is severely indebted to the banking system. It may be a staggeringly high amount of debt, or he may be embarrassed about the type/grade of debt.
    41 replies | 657 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-15-2017, 06:59 PM
    I see your quote and raise you another:
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-15-2017, 05:17 PM
    That is a very deceptive number. If a slaveholder has a wife, three children, and a younger sibling, all five benefit from, have a claim on, etc. the slaveholder's slave, but it only shows up as one citizen owning slaves. Something like 31% of Southern families/households owned slaves (makes sense when you look at household populatin size).
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-14-2017, 06:38 PM
    I included a source? For the slave numbers, the source only looks at slaves in the seceding states, which is appropriate. The Lincoln-Delaware example is appropriate.
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-11-2017, 12:38 AM
    He's not giving me a clear enough definition. If the government enforces "property rights"...that is government interference! If the government stops a foreign invasion, maintains a police force, or has a judicial/prison system...that is government interference! What I dislike is when some poor outcome is blamed on the government, no matter its size or its function. If government has 1% interference in the market, the blame is pinned on that. If any libertarian policy doesn't lead to good outcomes, it is because it wasn't sufficiently libertarian...no different from communists who think that every far-left/communist policy that doesn't work failed because it wasn't big-government enough.
    174 replies | 3240 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-10-2017, 11:44 PM
    Was he under investigation? Did the OPR complain about Comey, as well?
    261 replies | 5296 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-10-2017, 08:27 PM
    That's true. You can also include the cost of lives in the war to suggest that purchasing the slaves would have been easier. But we can't pretend that the South would have agreed to reasonable terms. I imagine they would want well over market value, if that, and that many slaveholders would intransigently never have relinquished their slaves. Slavery was also key to Southern culture; many Southern citizens would have balked at ending such a peculiar institution. Also, the fourteenth amendment, which was how segregation was ended, was only able to be passed after the war. Equal protection was a crucial part of our legal development. Plus, think of it from a moral POV. Many liberals have suggested that instead of attacking abortion, conservatives should pool together and give money to mothers to encourage them to give their children up for adoption. This would result in costs in the high double-digit billions; more if the conservatives promise to provide for the kid. Conservatives rightly point out that 1) they cannot force the mother's to do anything and 2) how evil it is to pay someone to not do something (from their POV) incredibly evil.
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-10-2017, 07:59 PM
    I'd appreciate you answering the former part of the question. Pick the thousands of societies (like in medieval times) that had little government interference yet still high unemployment So the interference explains 100% of the unemployment? It seems like to you, government is always the boogeyman, with you assigning all bad outcomes to government intervention with arbitrary altitudes.
    174 replies | 3240 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-10-2017, 07:40 PM
    http://www.gongol.com/research/economics/slavebuyout/\ Another source on the costs: http://www.cwc.lsu.edu. Archive seems to be down for now; can't find the specific page with the citation of the costs. If it seems that way, it is because I post numbers and figures that are so damn well-known and established that I figure it doesn't need to be sourced. I mean, just in this thread, do I really need to cite the articles of secession? It isn't like there are hundreds of different versions. They are well-known and accessible online. Same with the tariff numbers. I'll also admit that I have a near eidetic memory, which makes the process of fact-sourcing a little different for me.
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-10-2017, 05:30 PM
    Where are you getting your numbers from? I have seen 6 billion to buy out all the Southern slaves and a cost of war of 5.2 billion (North and South combined).
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-10-2017, 05:23 PM
    No one is forcing you to work for over a certain wage (over which there is a tax). No one is forcing you to work for US dollars, in the US. No one is forcing you to work, period.
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-10-2017, 11:37 AM
    Was Sessions in the middle of investigating Clinton?
    261 replies | 5296 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-08-2017, 12:48 PM
    To compare slavery to what we have now (and to compare that to serfdom) is so ridiculous. We have choices and freedoms. We have rights. We can sue employers for ill-treatment and can leave a job at will. We are not forced to work or earn money and can leave the country (or even renounce our citizenship) if we wish. The government recognizes and protects a whole slew of rights for us that it never did for slaves. We can inherit property and wealth from our relatives, but accrue none of their debt or crimes...unlike for slaves, who inherited their parent's state of bondage. We have a right to trial, juries, no cruel and unusual punishment, etc. Slaves had none of those things.
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-08-2017, 02:18 AM
    I think you sent me the wrong blog. That author vehemently attacks the 1.4% number. Firstly, the 1.4% number comes from looking at all US citizens, not just Southerners. That is clearly an issue. Just looking at Southerners, it is 6%. Secondly, we can argue about brothers. But what about wives and children? The 31% number comes from households that had slaves. It is very conceivable that many people lived together so you had multiple "families" in one household where only one family owned slaves. One way you can eyeball it is to consider that the average household in 1860 had nearly 7 people/household (although of course, that was for the entire country). You can see how the 6% number and the 31% number have congruence.
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-05-2017, 11:35 AM
    I could easily see it going the other way. With a strong rival on its borders, the US government builds up its military. The Confederacy does the same. Shortly thereafter, the 13th amendment freed them all.
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-04-2017, 12:13 PM
    1) What if Kenya had enslaved a few million US citizens, had a ton of US property, had a ton of people who wanted to be part of the US, etc. 2) The talk of "right" of succession and annexation leads to a very slippery slope. Does the US have "right" to any of its current land, which was conquered and stolen from the natives? How do those natives have the right to the land in the first place? You have rights up to the point that you can defend them. The Southern traitors tried to rebel and failed. The American colonialists tried to rebel and succeeded. Bush annexing Afghanistan would be a terrible idea. Probably less than 1% of their population would welcome that. There are no geographical or cultural ties. Their economy is leagues behind America's. The international community would rage. It would be a logistical nightmare and cost trillions to maintain a state that would eventually slip back into anarchy. Much of the same goes for an annexation of Mexico. But that is beyond any talk of "right" to conquer or "right" to be independent. All of us are living on land conquered from someone. To change the standard now would be hypocritical.
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-04-2017, 02:42 AM
    I suspect you may not have followed our entire conversation. Or, I'm not sure what your point is...
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-04-2017, 02:38 AM
    See the above on going mental at the word Keynesian. And you've also shit your pants about "Marxism" being alive and well. Sticky prices/wages is still taught because there is a cornucopia of academic research and evidence supporting the theory (indeed, only some classical economists even debate sticky wages anymore). Same with idle resources (if you think there are never idle resources, you don't have eyes, ears, or a brain). But neo-Keynesian economics balks at the idea that you can reach full employment via printing and spending. Their whole theory (which is backed by some impressive modeling) is that there is a natural rate of unemployment, and if you engineer more employment, you will get inflation. This will happen no matter how the extra employment is created; through government spending money or the private sector spending money. They're dubious about government spending (other than core functions) except in the case of distress; these distressed situations are where unemployment becomes higher than the "natural rate" and fiscal stimulus can accelerate a return to normalcy. Although again, they favour monetary policy over fiscal policy, and generally also believe that central banks can prevent distress using higher interest rates/anti-stimulatory monetary policy. Then again, you might find some neo-Keynesians who disagree on the bulk of what I just typed. It is one of the least ideological schools out there, generally preaching data, academia, and new research. Of course, that makes it subject to its own biases (they don't seem to catch on to the latest research, for one), but it also provides for a very large tent. It is the reason why neo-Keynesian economists tend to have the best scores when it comes to economic predictions (like being the best American wine, but I digress...and they tend to be the best out of the different schools they poll, but I digress again) If you believe in markets, you'll realize the truth that over the course of time, bad ideas die, and good ones live on. That's the reason why classical economics is pretty much dead as a school, why Friedmanite Chicago school economics is gone, why Marxist economics only exists in the fringe corners of the internet, why Austrian economics is a joke...hell, it is the reason why old-school traditional Keynesian economics generally has no place in academia, trade journals, or finance publications anymore.
    8 replies | 369 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-02-2017, 09:31 PM
    How can you fund the card?
    167 replies | 3906 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-02-2017, 09:03 PM
    Yes, he claims it, but where is his evidence? There is a lot of fake evidence out there; Ron Paul, Tom Woods, etc. quote these guys and it becomes mainstream knowledge. For example, Tom DiLorenzo spread the myth of 1% of whites owning slaves and the myth that the South paid the majority of taxes. They know they won't get called on it since the people reading their books and coming to their talks are inclined to agree with them. Eventually, it came out and DiLorenzo lost a lot of credibility as it was shown that he just made his numbers up. The webpage that I linked to has many sources. There are many books, academic studies, and census reports that corroborate the claim. Edit: I went to the link of sources on the youtube vid. I really wish he'd use inline citations. Anyway, the majority of his citations are blogs, opinion articles, and other junk, including a lesson plan from a teacher. Sounds to me like he was using reverse ratiocination to find the facts to fit his argument. I looked through the one study he cited, from Mises (so already a questionable source), and could not find any detail about the percentage of slave-holding Whites. Although it is an intriguing paper...it argues both that freeing the slaves through purchase would have been impossible given the political machinations and economic viability of slavery, and that slavery was caused by the government since in the absence of government, slave rebellions and revolts would have succeeded. I went ahead and looked at all the junk sources Molyneux provided that were relevant to American slavery, and could find no reference to the percentage of slave-holding Whites. Fake news, as it were...
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-02-2017, 08:38 PM
    If Africa had made slaves of US citizens, had US money/property/ etc. then yes. Moreover, the US was pretty much made from conquered land; the initiation of force. Did the colonial powers have a right to conquer the land from the natives? Did the US have the right to whatever land grabs it made?
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-02-2017, 08:35 PM
    If that were the case, none of his successors seem to have known what they were.
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-02-2017, 02:35 PM
    Your point being? White supremacy does equate being pro-slavery. It is hard to measure levels of white supremacy and anti-abolitionist belief in the pre-war North. But, we can probably safely assume that due to the prevailing notions at the time, a strong majority of the North was white supremacist as we understand it. At the same time, Northerners abolished slavery in their own states, and there was a lot of abolitionist literature coming out of the North. It is probably safe to say that the North was quite abolitionist as well. Though to be fair, the Confederates charged that the rabid anti-abolitionists were the ones who were conspiring to end slavery in the US; they contended that the majority of the North really didn't care and would have left the South to have its slaves.
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-02-2017, 01:37 PM
    Not accurate. About 1/3rd of Southern families owned slaves, with the number reaching 50% in some states: http://www.civilwarcauses.org/stat.htm It is true that in areas with fewer slaves, Southerners didn't support secession. West Virgina, northern Alabama, and eastern Tennessee for example. But you also had non-slaveholders who stood to inherit slaves, or, of course, poor Southern whites who dreamed of joining the upper class and owning slaves one day (that kind of American optimism which exists even today. Of course, you also had white supremacy, where many white Southerners and Northerners could envision life without blacks being in chains, especially in black-majority states like South Carolina.
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
  • Dr.No.'s Avatar
    05-02-2017, 12:30 PM
    Right. Because the South would have willingly just gone along with their slaves forcefully being purchased from them. The reason such a plan could work in other countries was because they had a more authoritarian government. When the English elites decided slavery was bad, they had the power and precedent to force people to give up their slaves (plus, of course, slavery was not so integral to the culture of those countries).
    115 replies | 2878 view(s)
More Activity
About Dr.No.

Basic Information

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Profile Sidebar Configuration

Activist Reputation (Self-Rated):
1
Activist Reputation (Staff Rated):
1
Select if you do not support Trump or Hillary.:
No Trump. No Hillary. (This will add a "None of the Above" badge by your name in all posts.)

Statistics


Total Posts
Total Posts
347
Posts Per Day
1.44
General Information
Last Activity
Yesterday 08:52 PM
Join Date
09-29-2016
Referrals
0
No results to display...
No results to display...
Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast

05-25-2017


05-23-2017


05-22-2017


05-15-2017


05-14-2017


05-11-2017


05-10-2017


05-07-2017


05-05-2017


05-04-2017


05-03-2017


05-02-2017



Page 1 of 15 12311 ... LastLast