I'm still having problems with this G***D*mn Blogger/Blogspot program. It won't let me write anything on the "Compose" page. Everything has to be done in HTML. That's good practice, but Lord have mercy, I'm slow at it. Time for a change, I think.
Showing posts with label market failures. Show all posts
Showing posts with label market failures. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 10, 2013
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
If this is the prize, what do they do to the losers????
I'd rather eat a can of Spam.
I'd rather be tied down and forced to be an accountant in one of Nancy Pelosi's low-wage Tuna Factories.
I'd rather be strapped into one of those Clockwork Orange deprogramming chairs with my eyelids pulled open by tiny electronic arms, and made to watch the John Edwards sex tape.
I'd rather sit through the Director's Commentary of An Inconvenient Truth.
I'd rather fill a blender with frogs and....
Just who the heck is this Man Of The People trying to appeal to here? I'd rather win a dinner date with Hermann Goering.
I'd rather be tied down and forced to be an accountant in one of Nancy Pelosi's low-wage Tuna Factories.
I'd rather be strapped into one of those Clockwork Orange deprogramming chairs with my eyelids pulled open by tiny electronic arms, and made to watch the John Edwards sex tape.
I'd rather sit through the Director's Commentary of An Inconvenient Truth.
I'd rather fill a blender with frogs and....
Just who the heck is this Man Of The People trying to appeal to here? I'd rather win a dinner date with Hermann Goering.
Monday, December 26, 2011
I see dead people. But not many from marijuana use.
I found this link on Samizdata.
In the year 2010 in the U.K., there were 81,400 tobacco-related deaths and 8,644 alcohol-related deaths.
Take out the big two (that have been subsidized by the U.S. government), and you're left with these, the drugs that are produced or distributed by the Mexican Drug Lords:
The numbers drop even further if you eliminate Poly-Drug deaths, (snorting coke while drinking Jim Beam, mixing any two in an unwise combination, etc.) Call it 900 people.
Here's a handy chart:
Please go here and read the whole thing, and to gather zingers like this one:
In the meantime, here's how many Mexicans (most of them innocent civilians) have been slaughtered in the four years since Mexican President Felipe Calderon decided to participate in the War On Drugs four years ago:
34,612
Here's how many Mexicans died in the Drug War in 2010, the year in which 900 died from drug abuse in the U.K.:
15,273
When we decided to end prohibition of alcohol, the violence on the U.S./Canadian border ended. Alcholism didn't increase. Corruption decreased.
Yeah, people still died from alcohol abuse, just like they were already dying from alcohol abuse.
We could do the same thing tomorrow, and save thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
We could reduce the pain and suffering of cancer patients.
But thanks to the Narc lobby, the prison lobby, and yes, the alcohol lobby, we won't do it.
Mr. Obama, please end your dirty little war.
The pic of the float from El Salvador's Anti Obama Drug War protest came from here.
The conclusions about the massive waste of resources in the UK Drug War are terrifying, and the UK Drug War ain't nothing like our Drug War in the U.S.
In the year 2010 in the U.K., there were 81,400 tobacco-related deaths and 8,644 alcohol-related deaths.
Take out the big two (that have been subsidized by the U.S. government), and you're left with these, the drugs that are produced or distributed by the Mexican Drug Lords:
The numbers drop even further if you eliminate Poly-Drug deaths, (snorting coke while drinking Jim Beam, mixing any two in an unwise combination, etc.) Call it 900 people.
Here's a handy chart:
Please go here and read the whole thing, and to gather zingers like this one:
According to the ONS data, in 2010 there were more helium deaths than cannabis, ecstasy, mephedrone and GHB related deaths combined. Helium is an inert gas which kills when people use helium to deprive themselves of oxygen. The recent explosion in helium deaths from under two per year until 2008 to 32 last year appears to be due to it’s recent promotion as a form of suicide.
In the meantime, here's how many Mexicans (most of them innocent civilians) have been slaughtered in the four years since Mexican President Felipe Calderon decided to participate in the War On Drugs four years ago:
34,612
Here's how many Mexicans died in the Drug War in 2010, the year in which 900 died from drug abuse in the U.K.:
15,273
When we decided to end prohibition of alcohol, the violence on the U.S./Canadian border ended. Alcholism didn't increase. Corruption decreased.
Yeah, people still died from alcohol abuse, just like they were already dying from alcohol abuse.
We could do the same thing tomorrow, and save thousands of lives and billions of dollars.
We could reduce the pain and suffering of cancer patients.
But thanks to the Narc lobby, the prison lobby, and yes, the alcohol lobby, we won't do it.
Mr. Obama, please end your dirty little war.
The pic of the float from El Salvador's Anti Obama Drug War protest came from here.
The conclusions about the massive waste of resources in the UK Drug War are terrifying, and the UK Drug War ain't nothing like our Drug War in the U.S.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
Happy Thanksgiving !!!
“Any man worth his salt would fight for his home but only a damn fool would fight for his boarding house.”
-Mark Twain
Here's a story that I first heard in China several years ago, and I'm probably going to re-run this post about it every Thanksgiving until I die. The best online account I've found is on the World Socialist Website (chuckle chuckle). It's about some Chinese farmers who got tired of starving.
On one night in Nov. 1978, 18 villagers of Xiaogang, including (leader) Yan Jinchang, risked their lives to sign secretly an agreement, which divided the then People's Commune-owned farmland into pieces for each family to cultivate.
This was a bold move, as it was seen as "capitalist" and might have led to severe punishment from the government at that time.
Thus, on that secret agreement covered with villagers' seals and red fingerprints, there was a wobbly line saying that "If any word about this is divulged and the team leader is put in prison, other team members shall share the responsibility to bring up his child till he (or she) is 18. "
The original copy of this agreement is now in a museum someplace in China. It had a huge influence. Instead of farming the land together, and putting up with slackers, loafers, regulatory parasites and the other inevitable Socialist baggage, this brave group of Chinese farmers decided that each family would be responsible for a certain section of the land.
That clause about agreeing to care for each others' children was a simple insurance policy. To the best of my knowledge, none of the farmers agreed to care for the families of those who didn't share their risks. In other words, you couldn't waltz into the agreement AFTER losing your head of household. There's not even a hint of Obamacare in this document.
The facts proved that it's worthwhile to take the adventure. Allocating farmland to each household, also known as "household contract responsibility system", fired the locals' enthusiasm for agriculture production, which had been contained in the outmoded planned economy, and helped poverty-stricken locals out of starvation.
That's just what happened when they agreed to stop the collectivist nonsense. Think of what could happen if they'd been allowed to own the land, instead of having it allocated to them by their "leaders".
The grains that a local farmer turned over to the state in the following year almost totaled what he did in past two decades, recalled Yan Hongchang, one of the 18 Xiaogang villagers who initiated the contract system.
Their practice was later supported by Deng Xiaoping, chief architect of China's reform and opening-up drive, and recognized by the Chinese government. Xiaogang has since been labeled as the pace-setter of the nation's rural reform.
Here's a similar story, from the Volokh Conspiracy. This one hits closer to home.
Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.
Time to quote Thomas Sowell for the 10,000th time. Laws and policies should never be evaluated by their stated goals and objectives, but by the incentives they create.
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials.
Like we're about to do with healthcare.
People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
In other words, when the hardest-working, most creative Pilgrims realized that they were working themselves to death for people who didn't want to work as hard? They started Going Galt.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.
Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.
And what have we learned from this?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
-Mark Twain
Here's a story that I first heard in China several years ago, and I'm probably going to re-run this post about it every Thanksgiving until I die. The best online account I've found is on the World Socialist Website (chuckle chuckle). It's about some Chinese farmers who got tired of starving.
On one night in Nov. 1978, 18 villagers of Xiaogang, including (leader) Yan Jinchang, risked their lives to sign secretly an agreement, which divided the then People's Commune-owned farmland into pieces for each family to cultivate.
This was a bold move, as it was seen as "capitalist" and might have led to severe punishment from the government at that time.
Thus, on that secret agreement covered with villagers' seals and red fingerprints, there was a wobbly line saying that "If any word about this is divulged and the team leader is put in prison, other team members shall share the responsibility to bring up his child till he (or she) is 18. "
The original copy of this agreement is now in a museum someplace in China. It had a huge influence. Instead of farming the land together, and putting up with slackers, loafers, regulatory parasites and the other inevitable Socialist baggage, this brave group of Chinese farmers decided that each family would be responsible for a certain section of the land.
That clause about agreeing to care for each others' children was a simple insurance policy. To the best of my knowledge, none of the farmers agreed to care for the families of those who didn't share their risks. In other words, you couldn't waltz into the agreement AFTER losing your head of household. There's not even a hint of Obamacare in this document.
The facts proved that it's worthwhile to take the adventure. Allocating farmland to each household, also known as "household contract responsibility system", fired the locals' enthusiasm for agriculture production, which had been contained in the outmoded planned economy, and helped poverty-stricken locals out of starvation.
That's just what happened when they agreed to stop the collectivist nonsense. Think of what could happen if they'd been allowed to own the land, instead of having it allocated to them by their "leaders".
The grains that a local farmer turned over to the state in the following year almost totaled what he did in past two decades, recalled Yan Hongchang, one of the 18 Xiaogang villagers who initiated the contract system.
Their practice was later supported by Deng Xiaoping, chief architect of China's reform and opening-up drive, and recognized by the Chinese government. Xiaogang has since been labeled as the pace-setter of the nation's rural reform.
Here's a similar story, from the Volokh Conspiracy. This one hits closer to home.
Many people believe that after suffering through a severe winter, the Pilgrims’ food shortages were resolved the following spring when the Native Americans taught them to plant corn and a Thanksgiving celebration resulted. In fact, the pilgrims continued to face chronic food shortages for three years until the harvest of 1623. Bad weather or lack of farming knowledge did not cause the pilgrims’ shortages. Bad economic incentives did.
Time to quote Thomas Sowell for the 10,000th time. Laws and policies should never be evaluated by their stated goals and objectives, but by the incentives they create.
In 1620 Plymouth Plantation was founded with a system of communal property rights. Food and supplies were held in common and then distributed based on equality and need as determined by Plantation officials.
Like we're about to do with healthcare.
People received the same rations whether or not they contributed to producing the food, and residents were forbidden from producing their own food. Governor William Bradford, in his 1647 history, Of Plymouth Plantation, wrote that this system was found to breed much confusion and discontent and retard much employment that would have been to their benefit and comfort. The problem was that young men, that were most able and fit for labour, did repine that they should spend their time and strength to work for other men’s wives and children without any recompense. Because of the poor incentives, little food was produced.
In other words, when the hardest-working, most creative Pilgrims realized that they were working themselves to death for people who didn't want to work as hard? They started Going Galt.
Faced with potential starvation in the spring of 1623, the colony decided to implement a new economic system. Every family was assigned a private parcel of land. They could then keep all they grew for themselves, but now they alone were responsible for feeding themselves. While not a complete private property system, the move away from communal ownership had dramatic results.
This change, Bradford wrote, had very good success, for it made all hands very industrious, so as much more corn was planted than otherwise would have been. Giving people economic incentives changed their behavior. Once the new system of property rights was in place, the women now went willingly into the field, and took their little ones with them to set corn; which before would allege weakness and inability.
Once the Pilgrims in the Plymouth Plantation abandoned their communal economic system and adopted one with greater individual property rights, they never again faced the starvation and food shortages of the first three years. It was only after allowing greater property rights that they could feast without worrying that famine was just around the corner.
And what have we learned from this?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Friday, May 13, 2011
Testing....1,2,3,....Testing
Something goofy is going on with the Google/Blogspot system. Can't post regularly.
Two days worth of comments have disappeared. (all 8 of them!!)
Will resume the rants as soon as regular service has been restored.
Two days worth of comments have disappeared. (all 8 of them!!)
Will resume the rants as soon as regular service has been restored.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
Saturday, April 3, 2010
PANIC PANIC PANIC PANIC
PANIC ! PANIC ! PANIC !
ABOUT A MONTH AGO, I "MONETIZED" THIS WEBSITE, MEANING THAT I ALLOWED GOOGLE TO POST SOME ADS HERE.
THIS MEANS THAT EVERY MONTH I'LL MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY COFFEE FOR ONE DAY.
I SWEAR ON A STACK OF BIBLES (KING JAMES VERSION) THAT I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT ADS APPEAR HERE.
THE AD THAT JUST CAME UP ON YOUR RIGHT, AS OF SATURDAY, APRIL 3RD, WAS AN AD WITH AN EAGLE ON TOP, INVITING READERS TO "LEARN HOW TO JOIN THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE".
DO NOT HIT THAT AD. DON'T DO IT.
UNTIL THE CURRENT MESSIAH TOOK POWER, REPUBLICANS SPENT MORE THAN DEMOCRATS.
DO NOT CLICK ON THAT AD.
YOUR COMPUTER WILL GET VIRUSES AND YOU'LL BE SPAMMED THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
YOUR COMPUTER WILL BE REGISTERED IN A FEDERAL DATABASE OF PEDOPHILES.
Plus, Republicans are not going to repeal Obamacare.
I apologize for that offensive advertisement on this otherwise charming website.
ABOUT A MONTH AGO, I "MONETIZED" THIS WEBSITE, MEANING THAT I ALLOWED GOOGLE TO POST SOME ADS HERE.
THIS MEANS THAT EVERY MONTH I'LL MAKE ENOUGH MONEY TO BUY COFFEE FOR ONE DAY.
I SWEAR ON A STACK OF BIBLES (KING JAMES VERSION) THAT I HAVE NO CONTROL OVER WHAT ADS APPEAR HERE.
THE AD THAT JUST CAME UP ON YOUR RIGHT, AS OF SATURDAY, APRIL 3RD, WAS AN AD WITH AN EAGLE ON TOP, INVITING READERS TO "LEARN HOW TO JOIN THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE".
DO NOT HIT THAT AD. DON'T DO IT.
UNTIL THE CURRENT MESSIAH TOOK POWER, REPUBLICANS SPENT MORE THAN DEMOCRATS.
DO NOT CLICK ON THAT AD.
YOUR COMPUTER WILL GET VIRUSES AND YOU'LL BE SPAMMED THE REST OF YOUR LIFE.
YOUR COMPUTER WILL BE REGISTERED IN A FEDERAL DATABASE OF PEDOPHILES.
Plus, Republicans are not going to repeal Obamacare.
I apologize for that offensive advertisement on this otherwise charming website.
Thursday, August 20, 2009
NO AID OR COMFORT TO THE ENEMY, NO WAY !
I'm probably as patriotic as the next person.
I think that we in the U.S. probably have the best system of government, as long as we don't convert it into a feed trough for friends of our upper level government employees.
I stand up for the National Anthem, and sing loudly.
I learned a long time ago that declaring perpetual allegiance to a concept is a bad idea. Anyone wanting you to stand up and recite a pledge is probably manipulating you. That's why I don't like the idea of a "pledge" of allegiance to a flag, or any other kind of loyalty oath.
Our national monuments are better than anyone else's national monuments.
I appreciate veterans.
Then there's this:
"Support Our Troops Whenever We Go...."
Are the people at Central Transport encouraging us to support our troops whenever we go to war? Whenever the CT trucks are rolling? Whenever we go....potty?
This is vague, and needs clarification.
"No Aid of Comfort To the Enemy - No Way!"
That first sentence was a masterpiece of clarity compared to this one.
Are Central Transport drivers occasionally asked to attend housewarming fundraisers for Osama bin Laden? Are the CT freight terminals surrounded by Al-qaeda operatives who want to come inside for coffee and donuts? Do ABF, Estes, SAIA, and YRC sometimes try to make a fast buck by shipping nukes into Afghanistan? And Central Transport doesn't want any part of it?
I'm just wondering.
I think that we in the U.S. probably have the best system of government, as long as we don't convert it into a feed trough for friends of our upper level government employees.
I stand up for the National Anthem, and sing loudly.
I learned a long time ago that declaring perpetual allegiance to a concept is a bad idea. Anyone wanting you to stand up and recite a pledge is probably manipulating you. That's why I don't like the idea of a "pledge" of allegiance to a flag, or any other kind of loyalty oath.
Our national monuments are better than anyone else's national monuments.
I appreciate veterans.
Then there's this:
This is a trailer owned be Central Transport, a "Less Than Truckload" freight company. All of their trailers have the same flag and slogan on the back door.
(One other thing I believe in, and this comes from being a Boy Scout....if you're going to put the flag on something, you're supposed to keep it clean. And if you're going to fly the flag, and the flag gets tattered, you're supposed to take it down and burn it. If the right-wingers ever get their way, the driver of this truck will be prosecuted for flag desecration. Freakin' filthy. )
Now let's get to the point. I need for someone to explain this slogan to me, using little bitty words that I can understand.
"Support Our Troops Whenever We Go...."Are the people at Central Transport encouraging us to support our troops whenever we go to war? Whenever the CT trucks are rolling? Whenever we go....potty?
This is vague, and needs clarification.
"No Aid of Comfort To the Enemy - No Way!"
That first sentence was a masterpiece of clarity compared to this one.
Are Central Transport drivers occasionally asked to attend housewarming fundraisers for Osama bin Laden? Are the CT freight terminals surrounded by Al-qaeda operatives who want to come inside for coffee and donuts? Do ABF, Estes, SAIA, and YRC sometimes try to make a fast buck by shipping nukes into Afghanistan? And Central Transport doesn't want any part of it?
I'm just wondering.
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
The Wreck Room, R.I.P.
I guess this means The Wreck Room is dead. Why can the world support 23,000 McDonald's outlets, but this place can't hold onto it's lease? Or am I too old to be getting worked up over this?Click here for pictures documenting the end of the Wreck Room era, recent bands, and assorted strange stuff. Compliments of Kat Shimamoto, A.K.A. Meezlady, who, if she has to do anything other than take pictures for a living, it's a shame. (But then, we live in a world that can support 23,000 McDonald's but no Wreck Room.) I found her site totally by mistake....hers was the first to start scrolling a few minutes ago on my Google dashboard page. Also shown on Kat's Wreck Room pages - a great band with a cruddy name - Addnerim - guys who seem to always hang out at Zoo Music, just down the road from our place on Camp Bowie. I really am too old to be this interested in all this.....
Here's a brief detour from a previous post about my favorite Wreck Room show.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)