Saffire

Get used to it, this is the way she handles people who disagree with her. Clearly their disagreement must be solely based on their desire to win the argument, rather than their desire to be right! http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/13013417024/good-bad-new-open-bill-wyden-issa.shtml Here you can see our Congress is already working on a new bill called "OPEN", which promises to do many of the same things SOPA would do. Governments typically work via an incrementalist approach, sometimes taking a step back and biding their time. But their destination is always the same - complete control.

Your link is focused on the counties near state borders, not the entire states. It's cherry-picking data. My video shows scatter plots of many studies taken over many years.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2B-wpEj-9k]Unintended Consequences of Price Controls - YouTube[/ame] Here is empirical evidence showing minimum wage hurts employment.

Bingo. NDAA was a great example of this.

I think you're right... it will be interesting to see what the politicians pass in the next week.

"Sad and lonely" Reilly, you never miss an opportunity to beautifully exemplify a psychological phenomenon called projection: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Ah, the guy with thirty-three thousand posts and no life. No need for you to die, nobody would miss you anyway.

Here are Mitt Romney's top campaign contributors, which is far more troubling than his ability to speak French:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFbYM2EDz40]Edgar the Exploiter - YouTube[/ame]

Kiame, I noticed a lot of posts by people in other countries, and Nancy's first response seemed to be referencing all Americans. I explained why Americans hold a negative view of the French, and pointed out that other nations often share our views on the French and other countries. All nations' political spheres are "petty" and arbitrary. This is hardly unique.

Right, neither article you linked to show an actual increase in the supply of doctors or hospitals. Only an increase in the demand. An increase in demand and a steady supply leads to higher prices.

The principles enshrined in the Constitution are key to any nation's prosperity, because they are timeless. Granting a small group of individuals the power to rule over many millions of people inevitably leads to corruption, bribes, favoritism, and economic inefficiencies. Governments are, in their essence, monopolies. Therefore the Constitution tries to point us toward decentralizing power and spreading it out. This has the effect of increasing politicians/police/troops' accountability.

A solid argument can (and has) been made that Obama didn't really try very hard to close Guantanamo: http://www.salon.com/2011/03/08/guantanamo_17/ If you're going to be a charismatic leader, you're capable of following through on your promises like this. Or at least putting more effort into them. And Keddie, your post didn't really have any substantiating content. Education doesn't create jobs. Construction workers don't only build houses, but that's MOSTLY what they build. Even the market for commercial real estate has tanked.

I don't think the French have a very good international reputation, particularly in Germany with the Euro crisis. The Euro and EU were very much French-led projects. It's sort of a point of humor among the British and other nations that the French have a sort of an undeserved superiority complex. Anyway, my point is that this thread seems to be a circlejerk for people who hate Americans. And don't get me wrong, I think there are a lot of problems with Americans and their government. But I don't think we're unique in this regard.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZUNi-W_zHQ]Welcome to Free America by David Barker on Dylan Ratigan's show - YouTube[/ame] I'm posting this as a topic because it's pretty rare to see a former employee of the State admit that the government itself isn't necessary...

Assuming this is true, why would the new owners of the paper mill not use the mill to produce paper? It would be unprofitable to just let it sit there empty. They'd need to hire workers to run it again, and likely the same batch of workers who were already skilled in operating it. Because in a market economy, participants are incentivized to put capital toward its most-profitable use. In this case, the paper mill (or steel mill) is the capital, the "means of production". A few reasons for a factory shutting down could include: 1. Workers (or their representatives in unions/government) demanding greater compensation than the market can sustain, which in turn makes the factory an unprofitable venture. This results in factories being moved to different jurisdictions. 2. The factory being only marginally profitable, and the owners of the land discover some new use for the land that's more-profitable (for instance, building an apartment complex or mining/logging). 3. Market demand has softened in that particular sector of the economy, so the factory becomes unprofitable. Similar to how demand for horses and buggies fell after the invention of cars and trains. If there are stock traders who buy the shares of the company on the assumption that it will be profitable in the future, and it's currently unprofitable, then they will suffer the loss when it goes bankrupt. But this rarely happens because it's very suspicious to investors when insiders and owners are restructuring a company and selling shares en mass.

Americans associate France (for better or for worse) with condescension and socialism, so naturally it's politically unfavorable to speak French here. Just like it would be politically unfavorable to speak French if you were a German politician. :P There are plenty of legitimate reasons to criticize Mitt Romney, but this isn't one of them.

Chuck, you have to understand that Bain Capital wasn't a destructive force in the market. It was simply cutting losses by shutting down unprofitable businesses, and redirecting those resources toward other, more profitable ventures. The businesses Bain Capital shut down would have gone bankrupt anyway.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6uR4lqa7IK4]Public Choice: Why Politicians Don't Cut Spending - YouTube[/ame]

The US, seeking to be a global empire, is always attempting to harmonize laws between the countries within its sphere of influence. This means pressure on other countries' lawmakers/judges/police to cooperate with the American legal system, even when it means giving up their sovereignty. This is part of the reason I greatly admire countries like Liechtenstein, which are militarily weak, yet stick up for themselves and their laws when other bigger countries harass them.

Tell me about the madness of the goldrush days, because I seem to remember learning that it was a very peaceful time in American history! [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wEOIY7eGaTc]thomas woods' wild west fantasy - YouTube[/ame] Chuck, the truth is that humans are social creatures, and most of them prefer to have good reputations with their fellow man. Money is only one means to obtain happiness - some people prefer leisure, others prefer to work hard and give their money away to good causes. To assume a monopolist of coercion, a select few men, can fairly and effectively spread money around a society to maximize happiness is overlooking two simple facts: 1. There is no group of men who are purely incorruptible and wise. 2. Money acts as a signal to direct production. Therefore, even if you could somehow overcome problem #1, and have computer/robot overlords, you'd still end up with the effects of problem #2. Giving people money increases demand, but doesn't increase production. When demand increases and production doesn't follow suit, price increases.

Is a lack of education really a problem in America? More Americans than ever (as a %) have PhD and BA degrees. Not everybody can be employed as a paper-pusher. Construction workers are in high demand? We just had a housing bubble. There's an oversupply of homes on the market now, and as a result prices have plummeted. Wasn't it the government's job to ensure we had good roads and bridges? It seems they've failed at that, even after printing and taxing away trillions of dollars... I guess they blew it all on corporate bailouts and unnecessary wars.

Chuck, study praxeology. If someone helps another person (by donating their time, money, etc), they're doing that because it provides them with greater happiness than spending that time/money on themselves. So everything we do, we do because of self-interest. It's the pursuit of happiness. Free markets maximize the ability of everyone to pursue their own interests, and therefore maximizes their happiness.

No, they don't. What are you talking about? There's a difference between greed and simple self-interest. All humans are self-interested, and this fact is impossible to escape. Everything you do voluntarily, you do because you want to do it. "Sacrifice" is not real. You should research egoism, it might change your perspective on things. And that's nice that you want to pay taxes. But others prefer not to see their money finance unnecessary wars and prisons that lock up non-violent "criminals". This is not a selfish position to take. Unemployment is high because the government isn't allowing the economy to equilibrate. It is artificially shifting demand, inflating credit and giving it to the politically well-connected, and regulating certain activities out of existence. This has the effect of destroying marginal jobs. There are two classes of people in society: those who voluntarily trade, and those who steal. The government falls into the latter category, the parasitic class. It's impossible to know the true value of what they "contribute" to society because they refuse to subject themselves to the market. The particular jobs Obama wanted to create weren't in demand by consumers, but rather by Obama himself (and his political allies). Obama forcefully redistributed money to his favored businesses.

You're both talking about accountability, and I think that's the correct place to be looking. Where does accountability come from? I don't think there's any evidence it comes from the political class, or the corporate class, or even the voters. Accountability doesn't come from any one group of people. It comes from the system itself. If the system allows for choice, you'll have accountability. If there is no possibility of choice, then you won't have it.