Spanish Government Bans Transactions over EUR 2500

April 16, 2012 · Posted in Global Economics, Interventionism · Comment

The creeping progression towards all-round state control under one soviet style European Union has hit a new low as Spain Bans Cash Transactions Over 2,500 Euros:

The Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, has announced on Wednesday that the plan to combat tax evasion on Friday approved the Cabinet prohibit the payment in cash transactions of over € 2,500 and which at least involved a businessman professional.

During the control session the Government in the House of the Congress of Deputies and in response to a question about the tax amnesty made by the general coordinator of IU, Cayo Lara, the Prime Minister has revealed that those who violate the ban will face fines of 25% of the payment made in cash.

The Government had already advanced the plan to combat fraud limitations include the use of cash for certain operations, although he had not yet specified which would place the threshold (yes at the time there was talk that it could be 1,000 euros for self-employed).

I highly doubt that this is in line with one of the supposedly fundamental pillars of the European Union, namely the unrestricted mobility of capital. Spain might as well exit right now and get it over with.

As everyone with half a brain knows and as we have been arguing here for a long time now: Government intervention leads to problems that will be combated with more government intervention until a complete breakdown of trade, credit, and the monetary system becomes inevitable.

We are witnessing the inevitable and accelerating downhill ride that is being aggravated and prolonged by one failed government intervention after another.

What’s next? All round capital controls, baby!

Tags: spain

ACLU: “Obama will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law”; Why Obama’s Presidency Has Been a Great Success

January 2, 2012 · Posted in Government, Interventionism · Comment

The ACLU writes President Obama Signs Indefinite Detention Bill Into Law:

“President Obama’s action today is a blight on his legacy because he will forever be known as the president who signed indefinite detention without charge or trial into law,” said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU executive director. “The statute is particularly dangerous because it has no temporal or geographic limitations, and can be used by this and future presidents to militarily detain people captured far from any battlefield. The ACLU will fight worldwide detention authority wherever we can, be it in court, in Congress, or internationally.”

As I’ve argued since the beginning of the Obama presidency, the more disillusioned young people get with who they thought was for sure going to be their savior, the better it’ll be for the ideas of peace and liberty, and the more devastating it’ll be to the dying concepts of governments and nations in the long run.

Thus Obama’s election and tenure have indeed been a great success in helping push our ideas and we could have hardly asked for any more.

Tags: aclu, ndaa

Roubini, Marx, Capitalism, Socialism, and Interventionism

September 12, 2011 · Posted in Interventionism · Comment

Very nice discussion:

Words and language can hold a lot of power. If your task is to destroy the people’s desire for peace and individual liberty, and if you can convince them that the US system over the past century is what free marketers mean when they say ‘capitalism‘, then your job is pretty much done.

But today’s shifts in public opinion seem very clear to me, just from comments I gather here and there: Fewer and fewer people are buying this story. More and more are beginning to try and think for themselves, simply out of plain necessity.

I have been harping on this for about 5 years now: The key concept that public discourse is still missing, the one word that explains all of today’s economic and political troubles is Interventionism.

Tags: capitalism, communism, Interventionism, karl marx, marx, roubini, socialism

FCC & Net Neutrality

February 18, 2011 · Posted in Interventionism · 2 Comments

Tags: fcc, net neutrality

Meth and Other Drug War Facts

January 22, 2011 · Posted in Interventionism · Comment

An interesting piece about the prevalence of crystal meth in the modern US:

Suppliers of drugs, consumers of drugs, and even drug addicts have long been known to be “rational” as a group — yes, rational, but stick with me. They respond to changes in prices; they respond to quality differentials and to changes in quality. They also respond — rationally — to changes in risk. So if drug users select their drug of choice using a rational decision-making process, what explains this “march to the bottom” and the emergence of meth in illegal drug markets?

The answer is that crystal meth is a cheap date; it has been referred to as the poor man’s cocaine. Cocaine and meth are both stimulants, so it is reasonable to assume that they appeal to the same subset of drug users. During cocaine’s heyday, meth was nearly extinct on the illegal market.

This changed with Reagan’s “War on Drugs,” which was effective in raising prices for illegal drugs by imposing greater risks and thus higher costs on production, distribution, and consumption. The initial shock of the war on drugs sent black-market entrepreneurs back to the drawing board; they needed to reduce their risk and their costs. What they came back with included highly potent marijuana, crack cocaine, and crystal meth.

It doesn’t take much to figure out that the War on Drugs, just as any other government program, is a very lucrative means used by bureaucrats to transfer extorted money to friends, lobbyists, and themselves.

The United States is the world leader in terms of the percentage of people sitting in prison. Yes, there are more people per 100,000 citizens incarcerated in the US than in China, Russia, or Iran!

According to a study by the U.S. Department of Justice, of the 2.2 million Americans that are currently incarcerated, 21.2 percent of them are non-violent drug offenders. That’s about 466,000 people serving time in rape rooms and mandatory labor camps without having violated anybody else’s rights.

When you make it risky to obtain a substance you drive up its price to ridiculous levels. When you drive up its price you make it immensely profitable for dealers to get people hooked on drugs through free samples or even forceful inducement. Obviously it’s in the dealers’ best interest to keep such policies going.

Then there are prison companies, such as the Geo Group, who are contracted by state and local governments, getting paid based on how many people they imprison, and whose stocks are traded on Wall Street. So their investors and banks have an incentive to keep this racket going by lobbying politicians who vote in a favorable manner.

There are law enforcement agencies with agents, police officers, sheriffs, prison guards who all benefit from such policies because their budgets are increased.

There are pharmaceutical companies whose drugs have been proven to kill or cause long term depression and mental disorders in more people than marijuana would ever even come close to. In fact, there are zero deaths reported as biochemical results of marijuana use. There are more people dying dying from Tylenol, Aspirin or Advil per year. Meanwhile marijuana has been proven to provide many of the desired pain relief effects at much less cost, people can even grow it at home! So obviously the huge pharmaceutical lobby, representing about 50% of Wall Street profits, has an enormous vested interest to invest in Congresspeople who will keep the drug war going.

There are Alcohol and Tobacco companies who were the main sponsors of the anti drug campaigns of the 80s. Alcohol and Tobacco combined kill over 500,000 Americans a year. So you can imagine how much of an incentive they have to ensure that their big competitor, marijuana, remains expensive.

The C.I.A itself was and probably is still trafficking drugs into the US because the business has become so lucrative. There is evidence and testimony from several former federal agents confirming this. You can find more on this in the movie American Drug War – The Last White Hope.

So there are all these people, all from completely different walks of life, unknowingly pulling on the same string to protect their own interests.

In a stateless society such people would have no vehicle to implement their destructive agendas.

It is the existence of a state in the first place, that allows them to bring these plans to fruition.

So long as liberals and other statist drug war opponents don’t understand this simple causality and relentlessly start pointing at the root cause of the problem, they need not be surprised if things won’t change for the better one tiny bit.

Tags: crystal meth, drugs

Socialism for the Rich a.k.a. Neoliberalism

January 3, 2011 · Posted in Interventionism · Comment

Here is an accurate analysis as to why libertarians shouldn’t count on most conservatives out there when it comes to defending what they view as free markets:

Because that’s what “privatization” means, to the typical “free market” wonk at Heritage or AEI: Instead of taxing the public to organize a public service through government bureaucrats who operate as a legal monopoly, you tax the public and hire a private company to perform the service. A private company which — thanks to no-bid contracts and all sorts of legal protections — usually operates as a monopoly and has the same outrageous cost-maximizing incentives as a “defense” contractor or public utility. And the tax burden may well actually be greater, because rather than just paying a bunch of white collar civil servants with GS classifications, you’ve got to pay white collar corporate drones — plus the cowboy CEO’s salary and the shareholder dividends. Taxpayer-funded either way, but with “free market reform” you get two layers of parasites instead of just the one. Woo-hoo!

See, it’s only “socialism” if you give the money to poor folks. If you give the money to corporations, that’s “pro-business.” And “pro-business,” of course, means “free market.”

I would be fully content with lefties using the term neoliberalism if they ever clarified that what they are talking about is a system with heavy government intervention, yet with the bulk of the money being distributed to businesses instead of bureaucrats.

This is really something that liberals and conservatives out there (who think they are oh so different from each other) need to grasp at some point if they care to make any sense:

Us voluntaryists and consistent libertarians are not proposing that extorted money be handed to the rich instead of the poor. We are proposing that aggression, and with that extortion, be universally proscribed; that there be no extorted money to play with in the first place!

You’re not a “free market guy” if you continue to tax people and, instead of paying government bureaucrats directly, you hire private businesses out of the voluntary market to do the job.

Just look at the unspeakable killing sprees, such as the murders of 1.4+ million Iraqis along with who knows how many injured for life or languishing in refugee camps, that had to occur in order to transfer wealth from US taxpayers to well-to-do war contractors.

I would argue that there seems to be a lot of evidence out there that hiring a private business for public money leads to far fewer checks and balances and less oversight and to far more chaos and wealth destruction, than if you use the money to pay government bureaucrats directly.

To be sure, the difference is one in degree not in kind. A shit sandwich is still a shit sandwich.

Tags: neoliberalism, socialism, war

Internet Censorship Bill Passes First Hurdle

November 27, 2010 · Posted in Interventionism · Comment

The Orwellian disease continues to spread as the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act passes the Senate judiciary committee:

The Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA) sets up a system through which the US government can blacklist a pirate website from the Domain Name System, ban credit card companies from processing US payments to the site, and forbid online ad networks from working with the site. This morning, COICA unanimously passed the Senate Judiciary Committee.

This comment beautifully exemplifies the government’s and its lobbyists’ hilarious hypocrisy:

“With this first vote, Congress has begun to strike at the lifeline of foreign scam sites, while protecting free speech and boosting the legal online marketplace,” he said. “Those seeking to thwart this bipartisan bill are protecting online thieves and those who gain pleasure and profit from de-valuing American property.”

This makes perfect sense of course! You see, because the government, that group of people who sustain their activities by taking other people’s property via aggression or threat thereof, is soooo concerned about property rights. =)

It is hard for many people to see it in the fog of inane and repetitive propaganda, but this kind of global madness and hypocrisy is at the root of the society we live in.

Since it is difficult to sell the public on legalizing outright censorship, the process of eroding civil liberties is a slowly creeping one. So don’t expect internet censorship to end here.

I work in the web business. The truth is, if a website is found to produce illegal or stolen content, then there are already legal means that can be pursued via the court system, local authorities, or even just by contacting the hosting company. Yes, of course there are those tech savvy folks that cannot be tracked down by those means, but those will not go away just because suddenly someone in Washington DC instead of a local authority initiates action.

Meanwhile, on the downside, centralized power is getting bigger and bigger.

The purpose of such laws, just as for example antitrust legislation, is not to protect people from property rights infringements. It is to give the government yet another stick in its arsenal that it can wield whenever it deems necessary. It is a tool by which special interest groups can invoke the power of the state to initiate shakedowns of sites that may represent a thorn in their side.

Tags: internet, internet censorship

Reservations About the Market Economy? – THE VIDEO!!

November 26, 2010 · Posted in General Economics, Interventionism · Comment

Tags: market economy

Reservations About the Market Economy?

November 26, 2010 · Posted in General Economics, Interventionism · 4 Comments

I’m writing this not to pick on this guy in particular, and also not because I find this topic in itself particularly interesting or relevant.

I’m rather doing it to show how intellectuals these days have significant white spots when talking about economics in general, and markets in particular.

And this is not necessarily this guy’s fault, it is an inevitable result of the “education” that millions of people, myself included, have received year after year in schools and colleges around the world.

So here it goes, the piece is called “Reservations About the Market Economy”:

How restaurants take reservations may not seem like typical topic for the Sift, but bear with me on this. A recent article about this particular niche of the economy says something interesting about how the economy as a whole works.

OpenTable.com is a service that allows you to make restaurant reservations online. It claims to handle 15,000 restaurants, and though it seems concentrated on upscale restaurants in the major cities, its reach extends all the way up here to Nashua, NH. It provides reservation-tracking software to restaurants. Its web site lets prospective diners check which of their favorite restaurants have tables open, and helps travelers find restaurants in unfamiliar neighborhoods.

Diners pay nothing, and in fact get loyalty points (exchangeable for free meals) for booking with Open Table. They also get to rate restaurants and see the ratings and comments of other diners. Restaurants pay installation costs, monthly membership fees, and a fee for each reservation. The business model seems to work. Open Table went public in 2009 and (at Friday’s closing price of $67.83) has a market capitalization of $1.6 billion. (That’s a little over $100,000 per restaurant. Hmmm.)

OK, so here is the first thing that he might want to elaborate a little bit further on, lest he mislead the reader. Since this is ( at least seemingly supposed to be) an article about the free market economy, at least nominally, he might want to point out that OpenTable, by going public on the US stock exchange, essentially left that field which more or less deserves to be referred to as a free market, and entered a highly government subsidized and manipulated field, as I explained before in The Root Causes of the Financial Crisis (in this case I was explaining the sources for artificially high demand for securities, such as mortgage backed securities):

Tax Policy and Incentives

You may, at times, ask yourself a very simple question: Why do so many people care about the stock market? Why is there so much money sloshing around in it.

This is a very important question. The pieces of paper called mortgage backed securities, which promise the buyer a share in the monthly mortgage payments of homebuyers were being purchased by numerous mutual funds and stock market investors all other the world. (I already explained above why the agencies rating those investment vehicles had no competitive pressure to perform.)

There is a reason why there was so much money available to be invested in such securities, amongst others of course. Governments across the globe fundamentally encourage investing in the stock market in one way or another, be it mutual funds, government bonds, or outright securities.In the US this is done through retirement plans like 401k and ROTH IRAs.

The concept is simple: Invest a portion of your money or else the tax collector will gladly take it away from you. This is how trillions of dollars are herded into the stock market, ready for mutual fund managers to be played with.

One major player in the stock market is … you guessed it … the government itself. Currently about $12 trillion is invested in government Treasury securities. To give you some perspective: As I outlined before, the total invested in US stocks is just about $10 trillion!

Is it conceivable that such incentive policies might possibly have played some sort of role in the huge demand that was created for mortgage backed securities at one point or another? Could it be that, for the sake of propping up demand for government bonds among other things, government officials will always have some significant incentive to herd money into the stock market? Could it be that they will do everything they can on their end to ensure people will stay invested for as long as humanly possible?

You might also be interested in this clip as far as this topic is concerned:

He may also have wanted to point out that on top of large scale institutionalized government controlled herding of money into the stock market, the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets has been reported several times to have intervened in addition to to all of that:

The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets aka ” The Plunge Protection Team”

The market is a system of elements that are in constant flux.

In a free society where individuals are allowed to make choices by themselves so long as they don’t infringe upon their fellow men’s life, health, and property, entrepreneurs use natural resources, transform them and/or combine them with previously produced factors of production, and turn them into either consumer goods or other factors of production. They employ workers in the process who provide the production factor labor.

They exchange consumer goods on the market against money obtained from consumers. They exchange factors of production against money obtained from other entrepreneurs.

When a business squanders factors of production which, from the consumers‘ point of view, would satisfy more urgent and/or ample needs in other lines of production, it operates at a loss. This sends a signal to the entrepreneur running the business to do one of the following, lest his operation contribute to a deterioration of the welfare of society:

- find a better use for the factors of production employed (produce different, more demanded goods)
- find more effective ways to employ them (increase the output of the factors employed)
- abort the operation, make the factors available to entrepreneurs who plan to employ them in more urgent lines of production, thus releasing them from their current occupation (declare bankruptcy)

Those are the choices he has under a capitalistic system on a market where the consumer, the common man, is supreme, a market based upon voluntary action. Any of these steps would swiftly remedy the misallocation of the resources and align them to the benefit of the common people, the consumers.

If an investor has invested in a company stock at a price that he deemed to be reflective of that company’s future earnings, but it turns out that consumers actually do not demand the company’s goods as expected, then the investor is punished via a drop in the stock price. This ensures that investors tend to try and invest in businesses which produce the most urgently demanded goods first, all ultimately in the service of the consumer.

However, when a group of people within society obtains resources via the initiation of violence or the threat thereof, then we are leaving the realm of the market and of voluntary choice and we enter the realm of compulsory action, viz. the government.

The government always and by definition manipulates the transfer of money in a way that is contrary to people’s voluntary value preferences. If it uses the money it has obtained in order to purchase stocks with the intent to support its price, it messes with the fundamentally most important indicator of a company’s performance in meeting consumer demands. It creates an environment of uncertainty and corruption, as investors will immediately flock toward this powerful group in order to ensure they get such special treatment. It prolongs the period during which a business engages in activities that it should and would have stopped engaging in much sooner, and thus always sets the stage for speculative booms and subsequent abrupt crashes in the future.

Such is the case with The President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, also known as the “Plunge Protection Team”:

The Working Group on Financial Markets (also, President’s Working Group on Financial Markets, the Working Group, and colloquially the Plunge Protection Team) was created by Executive Order 12631,^[1] signed on March 18, 1988 by United States President Ronald Reagan.

The Group was established explicitly in response to events in the financial markets surrounding October 19, 1987 (”Black Monday“) to give recommendations for legislative and private sector solutions for “enhancing the integrity, efficiency, orderliness, and competitiveness of [United States] financial markets and maintaining investor confidence”.^[1]

As established by Executive Order 12631, the Working Group consists of:

The Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee (as Chairman of the Working Group);

The Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or his designee;

The Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or his designee; and

The Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or his designee.

“Plunge Protection Team” was originally the headline for an article in The Washington Post on February 23, 1997, and has since become a colloquial term used by some mainstream publications to refer to the Working Group. Initially, the term was used to express the opinion that the Working Group was being used to prop up the markets during downturns. Financial writers for British newspapers The Observer and The Daily Telegraph, along with U.S. Congressman Ron Paul and writers Kevin Phillips (who claims “no personal firsthand knowledge” and is “not interested in becoming a conspiracy investigator”) and John Crudele, have charged the Working Group with going beyond their legal mandate. Claims about the Working Group, which are labeled conspiracy theories by some writers, generally include that it is an orchestrated mechanism that attempts to manipulate U.S. stock markets in the event of a market crash by using government funds to buy stocks, or other instruments such as stock index futures—acts which are forbidden by law. In August 2005, Sprott Asset Management released a report that argued that there is little doubt that the PPT intervened to protect the stock market. However, these articles usually refer to the Working Group using moral suasion to attempt to convince banks to buy stock index futures.

I will not here try to figure out as to weather or not this PPT has actually intervened in the markets. There are so many other ways via which the government overtly interferes way out in the open that the accuracy of the above claims does not matter in the slightest to assess the validity of the theories I am presenting here.

I will merely say that it is undeniable that plausible evidence exists to corroborate the idea that the government is using the PPT as yet another means to manipulate events on the market.

And he might finally have wanted to point out that by going public OpenTable has turned itself into a publicly traded company, the most regulated and liability shielded form of corporation where the investor’s liability past money invested is virtually zero. And this concept of the corporation, too, is not a market concept, but rather a government created one, as I wrote in that same article:

The corporation is a legal entity created by the government to bestow privileges and government protection upon certain people. It allows individuals to invoke the power of the state to avoid taking responsibility for their own actions and for violating others’ property rights. It has absolutely and 100% NOTHING to do with a free market, a system in which everybody’s property rights are respected and protected. It is, in fact the exact opposite of a free market concept. So please … stop throwing the poor free market in one cage with that beast that is the corporation. It’s not a very nice thing to do … :-/

I mean, this stuff is not really rocket science. When you get the opportunity to make immediate millions/billions from an IPO, facilitated by an environment of heavy government subsidies, manipulation, and privileges granted, then as a manager you are not very likely to be all that concerned about or constrained by consumer feedback and long-term thinking.

Anyway, keep all of the above in mind as you read on what our friend has to say about the “market economy”:

Services like this benefit from what is called a “network effect”. In other words, each user makes it more valuable for all the other users. (The standard example of a network effect is a phone system. If you’re the only person on a phone network, there’s nobody you can call. You want to be on the network that everybody else is on.) A small table-reservation service is quirky and has patchy coverage. But a big one has lots of restaurants, lots of ratings, lots of comments, and the resources to put all the latest bells and whistles on its web site. The more you use it, the better it gets at recommending restaurants you’ll like and tailoring promotions to your tastes.

Left to their own devices, markets with a strong network effect tend toward monopoly — one network to rule them all. As this happens, the power relationship changes: Rather than simply connecting diners to restaurants, Open Table is becoming a gatekeeper. It controls the relationship with the customer. It decides which restaurants succeed or fail.

Restauranteurs are starting to see the writing on the wall. In a post that gives a fascinating glimpse into the restaurants’ side of this relationship, San Francisco restauranteur Mark Pastore asks:

Have the ascent of OpenTable and its astronomical market value resulted from delivering $1.5 [now $1.6] billion in value to its paying clients, or by cunningly diverting that value from them? What does the hegemony of OpenTable mean both for restaurants and for the dining public in the long run?

He asked a dozen of his fellow restauranteurs in SF and New York about Open Table, and found only one who was happy. The others report feeling “trapped” and one says that his payments to Open Table amount to more than he makes from his 80 hours a week spent running the restaurant.

You see, once a service approaches monopoly, the dark side of the network effect appears: When only a few restaurants had Open Table, they might imagine that it was delivering new customers to them. But if all the restaurants have it, it’s just shuffling customers around. Checking Open Table might cause you to book with Amelio’s rather than Antonio’s, but you were going out to eat somewhere anyway, and you probably would have spent just as much money. At that point, Open Table’s fees are just siphoned out of the restaurant system without providing any systemic value.

Pastore concludes:

by permitting a third party to own and control access to the customer database, restaurants have unwittingly paid while giving away one of the crown jewels of their business, their customers.

And customers, by taking advantage of the short-term freebies Open Table provides, may ultimately wind up with fewer choices: If restaurants are less profitable, more will close. It’s already a tough business, and anything that makes it tougher is bound to push marginally profitable restaurants over the edge.

So I’m finally able to explain why this is a Sift topic: When people defend our skewed distribution of wealth or argue that the rich should pay lower taxes, their rhetoric usually implies that the free market rewards the “productive” members of society. But when you look into markets more deeply, that’s obviously false.

Think about the best restaurant meal you’ve ever eaten. Who should you thank for producing that experience? The master chef who perfected the recipe, the production chef who prepared your meal, the waiter/waitress who took care of you, the farmers who raised the ingredients, and even (though you probably never think about this) the cleaning staff. You might also thank the owner, who in a small restaurant was probably one or more of the people I’ve already listed.

But none of those people — probably not even the owner, the “small businessman” that conservative rhetoric idolizes — is making much money. None of them approach the wealth of Open Table’s founders, or even of the investment banker who managed Open Table’s IPO, or the speculators who have run up its stock price.

You see, our market economy doesn’t reward producers, it rewards gatekeepers. You don’t make money by building roads. You make money by finding (or creating) bottlenecks and setting up toll booths.

It is instructive, and kind of funny actually, that he uses the metaphor of government roads and toll booths to refer to market concepts. =)

The kindest thing I can say about the above is that I would like to give this fella the benefit of the doubt. The crucial word he sneaked in above is “our market economy”, since the economy he is describing is precisely the opposite of a free market economy.

But it is dishonest to then use that word and lead millions of innocent and less knowledgeable people to conclude that more government intervention, rules, subsidies, controls are needed to tame our oh so strangely deranged “market economy”. (Yes, even if he didn’t say this explicitly … he knows exactly that that’s what people will conclude and it is this that I vehemently and genuinely detest about this kind of writing.)

One more thing I would lament about this guy’s approach to research: Why in the world is he so focused on ONE company, namely OpenTable, to point out supposed shortcomings of the market economy?

I wonder … could there be examples that confirm my thesis above? Could it be that, in spite of heavy government intervention, there are competitors out there who, say, did not go public, and stayed leaner and less bureaucratic and monopolistic?

What about Yelp.com? I personally always use Yelp to find out whether I should or shouldn’t patronize a restaurant in my city. (At least I can assure you that neither I myself nor anyone else I know feel particularly helped by the ranking that a restaurant has on the San Francisco Department of Public Health’s website when it comes to making an educated decision.)

And if Yelp doesn’t do the job … then there will be those greedy profit seeking entrepreneurs who will try to capitalize on that and thus keep the so called gatekeepers in check.

This is precisely the whole point of an unbridled market economy!

That is, of course, unless the authorities destroy that unbridled market economy by making it difficult and costly to start your own business.

Oh wait … they do?

So to sum it up:

This guy points out that a corporation (a legal concept invented by the state) that has raised huge sums of money in a heavily government subsidized, propped up, and manipulated stock market, enjoys some monopolistic powers, insufficiently checked by new entrepreneurs in an environment where authorities across the country make it burdensome to become an entrepreneur in the first place, while ignoring the free market competition that has arisen in spite of all of this, and he seriously blames … the market economy.

Ladies and gents, I give you … the current state of intellectual discourse in today’s world.

Update: I can’t wait to see this guy write an article on how the antitrust authorities now undoubtedly need to intervene to strip OpenTable off its unjustly earned monopoly powers.

The good old rule of interventionism comes to mind: Politicians intervene on the market, create problems, and then intervene in order to cure the problems created by their own intervention, creating yet bigger problems, upon which they intervene to … oh well, you get the point. :)

Tags: market

Gauging, Dumping, and Colluding … Whatever!

November 18, 2010 · Posted in Interventionism · 1 Comment

A little while back someone told me a joke regarding my piece Antitrust & Monopolies:

3 prison convicts meet:

Prisoner 1: “I was charging higher prices than everyone else. They said I was price-gauging.”

Prisoner 2: “I was charging lower prices than everyone else. They said I was price-dumping.”

Prisoner 3: “I was charging the same prices as everyone else. They said I was colluding.”

Ah … the good old ex post justifications! Truly a masterpiece in the world of filth, immorality, and corruption a.k.a the government.

Tags: antitrust