Mankind using Earth's resources at alarming rate

in a billion years the earth will have lost all it's water, 2030 is no different a scenario

Where is the science behind any of these doomsday scenarios?
The earth has the same natural resources today as it had 10,000 years ago.
Nature recycles it all. We are all made of exploded stars and the the millions of years of decayed life that came before us.
The challenge is to make most efficient use of resources.
Until we build a Dyson sphere around the sun and then start running out of energy, the problem is NOT lack of resources.

If Europeans use too many resources to maintain their high standard of living, and this is still HALF as much as americans use, then the USA needs to seriously think about ways to reduce this massive waste. If the US is not even taking advantage of present technology in order to be efficient, then what makes anyone believe they will adopt even newer technologies? The future could be clean, efficient and exciting, so what are the obstacles? Political? Interests of big business?

The challenge is to make most efficient use of resources.
Until we build a Dyson sphere around the sun and then start running out of energy, the problem is NOT lack of resources.

I agree with this. The planet is two thirds water, yet we have a water crisis. We receive huge amounts of energy from the sun each day, yet we have an energy crisis. We burn the remains of dead creatures in our little cars. We're a primitive society. Technology is advancing quickly but it doesn't help that politicians are ill-educated about science. Political change is the slowest form of all change.

There are TOO MANY PEOPLE, and it's only getting worse. One of three things can happen:

- We can find ways to use much less resources to support all of those people.
- We can try to control population growth so that there are less people.
- Do nothing (and people will die anyway).

I think what the article left out was that the panel was made up exclusively from the Monty Python cast.

So far, no one here has said it is ridiculous and overkill to say we're using "resources equivalent to nearly one-and-a-half Earths to meet (our) needs".

We can't just grow our population forever. Eventually we will reach a point when there simply is not enough land to grow food for everyone, when natural freshwater sources are depleted faster then they can recover, forcing us to use even more energy on desalination processes. And then throw in the fact that our energy as a civilization comes from unrenewable sources at the moment, and I think you'd have to be stupid or willfully ignorant to not be able to understand how we could in the future be consuming more then the earth can sustain. The earth is not infinite, therefor there is a certain amount of life it can sustain in a given period of time. We don't know exactly what that number is yet, but beware of those who say it doesn't exist. That's like saying a cup can hold infinite water... only a madman would propose such.

There are TOO MANY PEOPLE, and it's only getting worse. One of three things can happen:

- We can find ways to use much less resources to support all of those people.
- We can try to control population growth so that there are less people.
- Do nothing (and people will die anyway).

Why not unshackle the ingenuity of the human race by promoting free markets and entrepreneurship around the world?

Solutions to all the problems you worry about exist. Are you willing to sacrifice government control to obtain solutions?

We can't just grow our population forever. Eventually we will reach a point when there simply is not enough land to grow food for everyone, when natural freshwater sources are depleted faster then they can recover, forcing us to use even more energy on desalination processes. And then throw in the fact that our energy as a civilization comes from unrenewable sources at the moment, and I think you'd have to be stupid or willfully ignorant to not be able to understand how we could in the future be consuming more then the earth can sustain. The earth is not infinite, therefor there is a certain amount of life it can sustain in a given period of time. We don't know exactly what that number is yet, but beware of those who say it doesn't exist. That's like saying a cup can hold infinite water... only a madman would propose such.

If you are willing to drink water recycled from your toilet, their is no water shortage. The ISS team is drinking such water.

"As it is, humanity each year uses resources equivalent to nearly one-and-a-half Earths to meet its needs,"

Where are we getting the other half an Earth every year? You can't use more Earth than exists. Exaggeration does not help your case.

5 earths with current utilisation levels,
I bet there is a missing 4 earths out there in unutilized energy in wind/solar/hydro/thermal pervading the surface of the earth every minute, speaking of surface, we barely scratched it with deep drills 3000-5000 mtrs for commercial exploitation, surely there is much more deep down down if the price is right. But first, it needs to go worse (hitting population walls, resource wars) before it gets better.

Why not unshackle the ingenuity of the human race by promoting free markets and entrepreneurship around the world?

Because all that you seem to get out of that are mobile phones, ipods and weapons.

Solutions to all the problems you worry about exist. Are you willing to sacrifice government control to obtain solutions?

Yes, and I listed them in my post. I preferred the first one, which was pretty much what you said in response to my comment anyway. As for government control, yes, well the government aren't doing anything about these problems.

Why not unshackle the ingenuity of the human race by promoting free markets and entrepreneurship around the world?

Because all that you seem to get out of that are mobile phones, ipods and weapons.

Solutions to all the problems you worry about exist. Are you willing to sacrifice government control to obtain solutions?

Yes, and I listed them in my post. I preferred the first one, which was pretty much what you said in response to my comment anyway. As for government control, yes, well the government aren't doing anything about these problems.

Governments are holding back those who could create solutions.
NZ ended government subsidies. Farmers are prospering and exporting food.
Zimbabwe used to export food. Now they are starving after the government stole the land from productive farmers.
Recall it was once illegal to sell home grown food in the USSR.
The USA and Europe subsidize many crops skewing output from what consumers demand.

Why not unshackle the ingenuity of the human race by promoting free markets and entrepreneurship around the world?

Apply your ingenuity to simple math: an exponential function grows without bound. The surface of the Earth is finite in area. If human population continues to grow exponentially (as it has been), eventually the entire landmass of the Earth will be covered by people standing shoulder-to-shoulder. Long before then, famine and war will replace "free markets" and "entrepreneurship"...

Why not unshackle the ingenuity of the human race by promoting free markets and entrepreneurship around the world?

Apply your ingenuity to simple math: an exponential function grows without bound. The surface of the Earth is finite in area. If human population continues to grow exponentially (as it has been), eventually the entire landmass of the Earth will be covered by people standing shoulder-to-shoulder. Long before then, famine and war will replace "free markets" and "entrepreneurship"...

Have you wondered why 'first' world nation's populations are declining?

Maybe if all could be brought up to such standards, via technology and free markets, population would stabilize and resources would be used more efficiently.

Do the math and you will find that 6 billion people could comfortably fit into Australia.

The area of TX is 696,241,000,000 m^2. Every person on earth could have ~100 m^2 right now. How much land is left over?

Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming...

http://www.zerohe...ed-fraud

How are there *TOO MANY PEOPLE* on the planet?

"If you gave each of us 6,000,000,000 people an acre, we could all fit into the United States, Brazil and Australia ... and still have room for 235,359,362 more people."
http://www.wnd.co...geId=816

Please do some research before buying into the twin myths of AGW and overpopulation.

Why not unshackle the ingenuity of the human race by promoting free markets and entrepreneurship around the world?

Most of the countries with real money HAVE free markets. Except of course for the cases where the markets have been tied up by monopolies and trusts.

Solutions to all the problems you worry about exist.

Indeed. Its called BIRTH CONTROL.

Are you willing to sacrifice government control to obtain solutions?

Are you willing to allow governments to stop corporations from colluding?

Ethelred

Has anyone besides me noticed that most, if not all, of those that are against birth control are the same ones that are promoting creationism of some kind?

Ethelred

Most of the countries with real money HAVE free markets. Except of course for the cases where the markets have been tied up by monopolies and trusts.

Solutions to all the problems you worry about exist.

Indeed. Its called BIRTH CONTROL.

Are you willing to sacrifice government control to obtain solutions?

Are you willing to allow governments to stop corporations from colluding?

Ethelred

Are you willing to limit the power of the governments to prevent them from favoring one company over another? GE and BP and Eron at the time were frothing at the mouth for governments to force Cap and Trade as they would benefit quite handsomely. Just as Gore has done.
If government had limited power, corporations must compete amongst themselves and consumers would have the power. But it is easier to bribe a few Congressman and use coercion.
BTW, monopolies cannot exist without protection from the government.

Has anyone besides me noticed that most, if not all, of those that are against birth control are the same ones that are promoting creationism of some kind?

Ethelred

Has anyone besides me noticed that those 'smart' people who believe in AGW and the Club of Rome doomsday scenarios always promote some government coercive, socialistic, solution?

Those who believe that even in an extended projection of resource utilisation there is no possibility of "resource extinction" are reliant on two fundamental conflations: 1) a misunderstanding of the dynamics of natural biocycles in the ecosphere and the resource recycling times involved - this with the accent on fossil fuels. 2) in a future Pareto Optimum phase where potentially all demand is met by correlating supply, an unrestrained numerical species growth will force the emergence of hugely complex paths of energy exchange but also vastly reduced ecological integrity and quality of life. Of course the focus on fossil fuels is also due to a sociocultural phase; so-called "renewables" are seasonally, geographically and diurnally sensitive and have never contributed more than a few percent to national needs. Although there is easy proof of copious free energy (any college student can perform the Bohren experiment with a huge overunity factor) this is presently viciously suppressed...

A more progressive view is gestaltic: it takes into account that our present sociocultural stance is enormously materialistic and based on non-equitable, dissonant energy exchanges. Also, the planet is our birth-cradle, we are not supposed to stay there in a progressive technological and psychospiritual maturing of the species. By not aiming for the stars we will over-exploit and soil our birthplace in space. Of course, there are those who are completely satisfied with a myopic view of the status quo...

A more progressive view is gestaltic: it takes into account that our present sociocultural stance is enormously materialistic and based on non-equitable, dissonant energy exchanges. Also, the planet is our birth-cradle, we are not supposed to stay there in a progressive technological and psychospiritual maturing of the species. By not aiming for the stars we will over-exploit and soil our birthplace in space. Of course, there are those who are completely satisfied with a myopic view of the status quo...

Would you care to repeat that in sensible english instead of psychobabble?

Are you willing to limit the power of the governments to prevent them from favoring one company over another?

Evading the question I see. Allowing monopolies IS favoring one company over another.

GE and BP and Eron

GE sold RCA to the French, so screw them. BP is Britain's problem. Enron devastated my state. Let them rot in jail.

Just as Gore has done.

Lets see. Gore saw that there might be a problem with the amount of CO2 being released and invested in companies that would benefit from stopping what he saw as a problem. Looks like a potentially wise, if risky, investment. It is STUPID the way so many pretend that there is something nefarious about that. By that standard you should be raking Bill Gates over the COALs for investing in software.

If government had limited power,

My government's power IS limited.

corporations must compete amongst themselves

Or collude and avoid competition. As is often the case.

Continued

Ethelred

and consumers would have the power

Some people are totally ignorant about reality. You seem to be one of them. Go study the Robber Barons and Teddy Roosevelt's war against those thieving monopolists.

But it is easier to bribe a few Congressman and use coercion.

Or even to go overseas and bribe THOSE politicians thus avoiding US laws.

BTW, monopolies cannot exist without protection from the government.

Ever hear of J. P. Morgan? How about the Hunt Brothers unregulated attempt to corner the silver market? Standard Oil? ATT? The Sugar Trusts? United Fruit Company? Any of these monopolies that came into existence without government's help.

Continued

Ethelred

Has anyone besides me noticed that those 'smart' people who believe in AGW

Evasion. And you are again painting me as someone else.

and the Club of Rome doomsday

What is next from you? Lizards from outer space?

And would you mind NOT putting words in my mouth? You do it a lot with you all but calling me a Commie Running Dog for not agreeing to the sort of Mad Dog Capitalism that even Adam Smith pointed out would be disastrous.

Please note that I ASKED you if you could even be agree to anti-trust, something the Adam Smith thought was necessary and YOU brought him up as a prophet of Capitalism.

Men will collude. It doesn't matter if it is in politics or business or finance. There is nothing magic about industry. Or for that matter state and local government. All of them must be watched and individuals can't do it. And with journalism OWNED by big business like Murdock it is hard to get help from the Fourth Estate these days.

Ethelred

Would you care to repeat that in sensible english instead of psychobabble?

Some of it made sense. However it did look too much like a paper for Science. And it needed some whitespace.

It also made at least one VERY dubious statement. Which after checking it out made it clear that it was even more dubious than I thought.

Although there is easy proof of copious free energy (any college student can perform the Bohren experiment with a huge overunity factor)

ANY STUDENT? What college did you go to?

Then there is the little problem that YOU aren't making money from free energy. Anyone could do it if it worked. You could pretend that you had solar power and were selling the excess.

I found a lot of people claiming that this is easy. Not a one claiming to have produced actual usable power. None.

Its Cranking.

Now the suspiciously dense style of the post makes more sense. Its a Crank attempting to take on the color of science.

Energy ain't free. TANSTAAFL.

Ethelred

"You seem to be one of them. Go study the Robber Barons and Teddy Roosevelt's war against those thieving monopolists."

Yes, you should study how TR started socialism in the USA.
"Myth of the Robber Barons explodes the misperception that the great competitors of the 19th century made their gains unjustly, while it exposes the damage done by those who depended primarily on state favors." http://www.mackin...x?ID=317

" How about the Hunt Brothers unregulated attempt to corner the silver market? { They failed did they not?} ATT? {ATT was a government monopoly. A few years ago there was only ONE phone company, by law. A monopoly.}

The ONLY way a monopoly can exist is with the protection of the government. In a free market NO monopoly can last long as competitors find ways to gain market share. MS has competitors in SW and gaming. They have never had a monopoly.

"My government's power IS limited."

The government's power is limited by what? They buy GM and Chrysler and..

Myth of the Robber Barons:

"The author, Burton Folsom, divides the entrepreneurs into two groups market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs. The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price. The political entrepreneurs such as Edward Collins in steamships and in railroads the leaders of the Union Pacific Railroad were men who used the power of government to succeed. They tried to gain subsidies, or in some way use government to stop competitors. The market entrepreneurs helped lead to the rise of the U. S. as a major economic power. By 1910, the U. S. dominated the world in oil, steel, and railroads led by Rockefeller, Schwab (and Carnegie), and Hill. The political entrepreneurs, by contrast, were a drain on the taxpayers and a thorn"

http://www.amazon...63020315

All 'solutions' demanded by AGW disciples are political at the expense of the economic.

"It is the highest impertinence and presumption, therefore, in kings and ministers, to pretend to watch over the economy of private people, and to restrain their expense... They are themselves always, and without any exception, the greatest spendthrifts in the society. Let them look well after their own expense, and they may safely trust private people with theirs. If their own extravagance does not ruin the state, that of their subjects never will.

"Though the profusion of government must, undoubtedly, have retarded the natural progress of England towards wealth and improvement, it has not be able to stop it. "
The Wealth of Nations, Book II, Chapter III"

http://www.adamsm...otes.htm

Adam Smith was no fan of unlimited government.

you should study how TR started socialism in the USA

Your misuse of language (no American president ever was preparing socialism) shows that your intentions are different from the meaning of your words.

Adam Smith was no fan of unlimited government.

Are you a fan of unlimited economy?

Yes, you should study how TR started socialism in the USA

Hard to study something that exists only in your head.

Myth of the Robber Barons explodes the misperception that the great competitors of the 19th century made their gains unjustly

Who said anything about unjustly, though certainly some did. A monopoly can use its money and control to destroy competition simply by running at a loss where ever the competitor exists. This is why we need anti-trust. For instance competing against MS has little to do with who has the better product. It has lots to do with who has the deepest pockets.

I don't see anything in that link that even mentions Teddy.

They failed did they not?

They damaged the silver market in the process.

A few years ago there was only ONE phone company, by law.

False. There NEVER was only one, they just didn't compete. Nor was there such a law. Heck even the FEW years is false. Its been longer since ATT gave up in the anti-trust case.

Cont.

Ethelred

The ONLY way a monopoly can exist is with the protection of the government.

Funny how you carefully ignored Standard Oil. Which did EXACTLY what you claim can't happen.

In a free market NO monopoly can last long as competitors find ways to gain market share.

Tell that to the competitors of Standard Oil. And for long can be a LOOONNG time even when the government hasn't intervened.

The government's power is limited by what?

The Constitution. Try reading it. Note the clauses about interstate commerce in particular.

They buy GM and Chrysler and..

When a company asks for help from US the People why shouldn't we get at least partial ownership? As long as the stock is put back on the market later.

The market entrepreneurs, such as Hill, Vanderbilt, and Rockefeller, succeeded by producing a quality product at a competitive price.

And using deep pockets plus collusion to suppress competition.

Continued

Ethelred

"The clearest definition of monopoly is one seller, with the law prohibiting competitors from entering the market. service in a certain locale — and competition is prohibited by the local governing body. "

" The little-known truth is that when the government took Standard Oil to court in 1907, Standard Oil's market share had been declining for a decade. Far from being a "monopoly," Standard's share of petroleum refining was approximately 64% at the time of trial. Moreover, there were at least 147 other domestic oil-refining competitors in the market — and some of these were large, vertically integrated firms such as Texaco, Gulf Oil, and Sun. Kerosene outputs had expanded enormously (contrary to usual monopolistic conduct); and prices for kerosene had fallen from more than $2 per gallon in the early 1860s to approximately six cents per gallon at the time of the trial. So much for the myth of the Standard Oil "monopoly."
http://www.fff.or...592c.asp

"In 1934, the government set AT&T up as a regulated monopoly under the jurisdiction of the Federal Communications Commission,[6] in the Communications Act of 1934.

As a result, by 1940 the Bell System effectively owned most telephone service in the United States, from local and long-distance service to the telephones themselves. This allowed Bell to prohibit their customers from connecting phones not made or sold by Bell to the system without paying fees. For example, if a customer desired a type of phone not leased by the local Bell monopoly, he or she had to purchase the phone at cost, give it to the phone company, then pay a 're-wiring' charge and a monthly lease fee in order to use it. An oft-heard remark at the time was "Ma Bell has you by the calls".
http://en.wikiped...l_System

ATT was a monopoly, protected by the state, but I am being redundant.

you should study how TR started socialism in the USA

Your misuse of language (no American president ever was preparing socialism) shows that your intentions are different from the meaning of your words.

Adam Smith was no fan of unlimited government.

Are you a fan of unlimited economy?

I support a market were people are free to voluntarily trade with each other.

TR started socialism. FDR practiced fascism, a form of national socialism. http://www.fff.or...411e.asp

NYT denounced TRs socialism: "The editorial was reacting to a platform of Teddy Roosevelt that included an income tax, a central bank, and curbs on competition. The NYT said that the American people are too intelligent and have too much common sense to be deluded by the "shallow sophistries of Roosevelt Socialism.""
http://blog.mises...0015.asp

"In the late 1990s, the now-defunct Enron was one of the largest lobbying influences behind the international Kyoto Treaty, which would have forced the world to comply with a ghastly web of new regulations and would have meant large energy contracts for Enron, had the company not gone bankrupt. The antitrust breakup of Microsoft was a de facto giveaway to competitors such as Netscape. (One of the complaints about Microsoft was that it intended merging with AOL, a company with which Netscape has since joined forces.) "
"it is also vitally important to make clear that America doesn’t have a free-market economy, and indeed many of the ills associated with free markets are actually the result of state capitalism — or socialist corporatism. That the expansion of government regulationsis frequently supported most enthusiastically by corporate interests ..."
http://www.fff.or...411e.asp

"Verheugen has stumbled upon the world’s second-oldest profession, that which seeks to make a fortune off of governmental policy rather than through competition. "
"Lay was also a favorite and longtime trustee at a similar outfit known as the Heinz Center for Science, Economics and the Environment (run by John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz). An embarrassing e-mail emerged in which Heinz staff pleaded with Lay, “Simply stated, your background, expertise and experience make you uniquely qualified [to run our] global-warming [initiative].” "

http://cei.org/ar...cidences

Like great-grandfather like great-grandson?

" as Lehman Brothers lies in ruins, let us take notice of certain coincidences. For example, as Lehman melted down, observers spotted the web of climate-specific similarities connecting that company’s priorities and activism and Enron’s. Like Enron, the bank was a strong promoter of carbon pricing, and its recommendations on the subject had begun to be adopted by governments around the world. Lehman was also the banker for Gore’s private equity firm, Generation Investment Management.

As it happened, one of Lehman’s managing directors, Theodore Roosevelt IV, was also the Pew Center’s chairman, as Lay was their star before him. Roosevelt is also a board member of Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection."

http://cei.org/ar...cidences

What a tangled web!

((Has anyone besides me noticed that most, if not all, of those that are against birth control are the same ones that are promoting creationism of some kind?))
Um by procreation we perpetuate the species, which via the laws of nature help to ensure a viable and healthy species in terms of adequate numbers. Those who favor unbridled birth control and abortion hate the Natural Order, which is built on the foundation of the family. Furthermore, most Americans not only believe in God (~90%) but as logic would dictate, also believe that God had something to do with the creation process. Now that's where things become a bit sticky since most of those believe in the biblical account of creation as taught in Genesis, including an earth that's less than 10 K yrs old. Then there are those of us who accept the existing scientific evidence which points to an ancient earth (4.6 billion yrs old) and the evolution of life from lower forms with the caveat of that process having been initiated by God.

Greenazis seek to destroy capitalism and to impose some new way to practice totalitarian communism under the guise of *saving the planet*...
"Bolivian President Evo Morales has told a UN forum that capitalism should be scrapped if the planet is to be saved from the effects of climate change. 'If we want to save our planet earth, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system...If we want to save our planet earth, to save life, to save mankind, we have a duty to put an end to the capitalist system.'"
http://michellema...italism/

All the more reason to oppose ANY climate change control treaty. For the real reason to oppose such draconian Leftwing propositions is to preserve our constitutional freedoms and free market system of government.

Adam Smith was no fan of unlimited government.

Are you a fan of unlimited economy?

I support a market were people are free to voluntarily trade with each other.

Always preaching, never answering.
Not trustworthy.

Adam Smith was no fan of unlimited government.

Are you a fan of unlimited economy?

I support a market were people are free to voluntarily trade with each other.

Always preaching, never answering.
Not trustworthy.

I answered.

Are you a fan of unlimited government?

Are you a fan of unlimited economy?

I support a market were people are free to voluntarily trade with each other.

Always preaching, never answering.
Not trustworthy.

I answered.

Yes. But not my question.

Are you a fan of unlimited government?

No, but:

Between the strong and the weak
between the rich and the poor
it is freedom which suppresses
and it's the law which sets free.

(Lacordaire)

neither an unlimited government nor an unlimited market seems to favour the average joe. I think a free market with safety valves should be the way forward, what I would call a responsible free market, not a market that lends billions to build a bubble in Dubai because of bankers getting commissions.Free should not mean freedom to loot the cookiejar of the company that employs you.

neither an unlimited government nor an unlimited market seems to favour the average joe. I think a free market with safety valves should be the way forward, what I would call a responsible free market, not a market that lends billions to build a bubble in Dubai because of bankers getting commissions.Free should not mean freedom to loot the cookiejar of the company that employs you.

It's too bad so many don't understand the concept of a free market. What is 'free' about our banking system? It is highly regulated by numerous government agencies around the world, yet spectacular failures abound.
BTW, it was the 'government' of Dubai that borrowed the money.
The US government guarantees bank deposits up to $100k. Why should depositors care what bankers do then? How 'free' is that? If you knowingly and freely risked your money would you not pay closer attention?
The function of government is to protect from theft and fraud. It is your job to mitigate risk in a free market.

Are you a fan of unlimited economy?

I support a market were people are free to voluntarily trade with each other.

Always preaching, never answering.
Not trustworthy.

I answered.

Yes. But not my question.

Are you a fan of unlimited government?

No, but:

Between the strong and the weak
between the rich and the poor
it is freedom which suppresses
and it's the law which sets free.

(Lacordaire)

Define 'unlimited economy'.

More propaganda to push cap and trade through, what a joke! I wonder how much commission the brokers/bankers will make off of this AND if the FED will control it?

Couldn't connect

The market entrepreneurs helped lead to the rise of the U. S. as a major economic power.

So did those railroads that the US government helped get going.

(and Carnegie)

Who was not the only Robber Baron that used the government and the Pinks to suppress and often to even KILL people in the labor movement.

The political entrepreneurs, by contrast, were a drain on the taxpayers and a thorn

Funny how he tells that fairy story with a straight face while calling the RAILROADS were part of the free market.

If he makes such a clear fabrication as claiming the rails were a free market he likely made others. Yet you believe him. Go study the Robber Barons again. And the Railroads.

All 'solutions' demanded by AGW disciples are political at the expense of the economic.

Still painting away I see. However you might notice that even people in business are aware that the publicly owned companies find it difficult to make long term efforts.

Continued

Ethelred

Adam Smith was no fan of unlimited government

I didn't claim he was. Especially since England still wasn't democratic. It STILL doesn't have a Constitution. I just said he wasn't for allowing the sort of mad dog capitalism you are for.

From the same site

Monopoly...is a great enemy to good management

The price of monopoly is upon every occasion the highest which can be got.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is im-possible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and jus-tice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary.

That was long before big business and at the beginning of finance.

Yet more

Ethelred

An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole.

And there he seems to be against ALL the people you are supporting. They are ALL incorporated.

And how about something that looks REMARKABLY like socialist thinking.

What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.

So are you still going to pretend that it is possible to have a free economy without SOMETHING to stop the Robber Barons from gaining control at the expense of the rest of humanity?

Ethelred

"The clearest definition of monopoly is one seller, with the law prohibiting competitors from entering the market. service in a certain locale — and competition is prohibited by the local governing body. "

That is a fantasy, not a surprising thing considering the source. When a company controls the market to the extent that it can charge what it wants and still destroy its competitors that is a monopoly. And a monopoly is not a Trust which is when competitors agree not to compete and to destroy those that do.

So much for the myth of the Standard Oil "monopoly."

Carefully ignoring ALL that preceded.

Some business organizations spend years, even decades, earning consumer support

Indeed. That is why the monopolies are not inherently illegal in the US. Campbell's Soup being an obvious case. Microsoft being the opposite case when they engaged in anti-competitive contracts with OEMs. Which is why Bill lost his first monopoly case and was told to cease and desist.

Ethelred

Competitors and left-wing university professors are prone to call such firms "monopolies."

They are. He can lie about it all he wants but they are still monopolies and under US law are restricted from the sort of actions that MS engaged in.

Ah, but won't firms that have earned high market share use their "power" to restrict output thereby raising prices? They might attempt to do that.

Not only might but sometimes do.

But that sort of behavior will quickly attract competitors from both within and without the industry.

Lie. There is no inside when someone already owns it all.

But can't firms collude and fix prices in free markets? The answer again is — they are free to try.

In his world. Fortunately not in the US or Europe.

But most credible college professors will inform their students that historically such attempts have been abject failures.

He has an interesting definition of credible. More like delusional.

Ethelred

But we must understand the true source and causes of monopolies — governmental barriers to free and open competition.

Ideological thinking. The true source is human beings. Funny how he thinks people are different in business than in government.

From what I can see that rather than explicitly admit you are against anti-trust you have engaged in a lot of ideological fantasy about human beings and finance. Every bit as fantastical as Karl Marx. Both fantasies are dependent on something that is not a human being.

As a result, by 1940 the Bell System effectively owned most telephone service in the United States,

Totally ignoring the fact that it did that BEFORE 1934 as well.

ATT was a monopoly, protected by the state, but I am being redundant.

ATT was a monopoly that the state decided to regulate rather than break up. You are being duplicitous not redundant.

Ethelred

http://www.fff.or...411e.asp

Oh goody the same Ideological fantasist as before. Such a neutral source. Well a source of fantasy anyway.

The editorial was reacting to a platform of Teddy Roosevelt that included an income tax, a central bank, and curbs on competition.

Lets see. A central bank. The thing that made England wealthy instead of poverty stricken. An income tax so that those the gained the most from the government paid the most, gosh that is so awful. Curbs on MONOPOLIES increase competition, only a fantasist could claim otherwise.

Ethelred

Um by procreation we perpetuate the species

Really. I had no idea.

Those who favor unbridled birth control and abortion hate the Natural Order

Good, though abortion is not birth control, it is the result of NO birth control. The Natural OrderTM is dependent on a great deal of death and suffering.

Furthermore, most Americans not only believe in God (~90%)

85% may be closer.

but as logic would dictate, also believe that God had something to do with the creation process.

False. In two different ways. There is NO logic involved in that, except that based on dubious premises. Second YOUR god is that same Jehovah.

Now that's where things become a bit sticky since most of those believe in the biblical account of creation as taught in Genesis

Which shows how reliable the US majority is as a source of truth.

(4.6 billion yrs old)

Which is not the World of Jehovah.

having been initiated by God.

No god is needed to explain the Universe we live in.

Ethelred

http://www.fff.or...411e.asp

Oh goody the same Ideological fantasist as before. Such a neutral source. Well a source of fantasy anyway.

The editorial was reacting to a platform of Teddy Roosevelt that included an income tax, a central bank, and curbs on competition.

Lets see. A central bank. The thing that made England wealthy instead of poverty stricken. An income tax so that those the gained the most from the government paid the most, gosh that is so awful. Curbs on MONOPOLIES increase competition, only a fantasist could claim otherwise.

Ethelred

Our FED is doing a bang up job.

Since you were dead wrong about ATTs monopoly, you need to provide some evidence to support your assertions.
And again, a monopoly can only exist with the protection of the government. With competition, no government curbs are needed. Competition will prevent any company from having 100% market share.

I challenge anyone to give me an example of what they call a monopoly whose market is not protected by the state.
Example of a monopoly: US postal service first class mail (it is against the law for other carriers to deliver first class mail).

"That is why the monopolies are not inherently illegal in the US. Campbell's Soup being an obvious case. "

I didn't know Campbell Soup was a monopoly. I see all sorts of competing brands on the store shelves.

"Funny how he tells that fairy story with a straight face while calling the RAILROADS were part of the free market."

You need to read it again. The author clearly states the railroads were dominated by political entrepreneurs because the market was not free.

Compare and contrast:

Ethered: " An income tax so that those the gained the most from the government paid the most, gosh that is so awful. "

Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

This translation of one definition of communism attributed to K. Marx is not correct. The actual German phrase

Jeder nach seinen Faehigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Beduerfnissen

translates as

Everybody according to his abilities, to everybody according to his needs.

It's not the same meaning if you insert a "from" when there is none in the original.

Marx: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

This translation of one definition of communism attributed to K. Marx is not correct. The actual German phrase

Jeder nach seinen Faehigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Beduerfnissen

translates as

Everybody according to his abilities, to everybody according to his needs.

It's not the same meaning if you insert a "from" when there is none in the original.

Further research suggests it was Stalin who said "From each....".
Marxists say: "Work would then be done directly for society; it would be considered normal and necessary; it would be performed voluntarily, each giving the best of his creative ability. Only then would “each give according to his ability and receive according to his needs.”" http://www.marxis...econ.htm
How does that square with 'progressive' taxation? Taxes are voluntary?

How does that square with 'progressive' taxation? Taxes are voluntary?

They were passed into law by a majority of a representative democracy. The law can be revoked if the majority should choose to do so. Of course, "tyranny of majority" would be the standard response, to which the usual retort would be: find a country where the majority's will is more to your liking... In other words, if you aren't the one howling, then someone else always will be anyway.

I challenge anyone to give me an example of what they call a monopoly whose market is not protected by the state.

This can no longer happen in the developed world, because every single developed nation has antitrust laws. In third world nations, the monopolistic industry is frequently THE government (i.e. the two are one and the same entity): the industry (which accumulates all the money and power) ends up either buying or otherwise controlling the legislation. Look up the etymology of "banana republic".

Ideological thinking. The true source is human beings. Funny how he thinks people are different in business than in government.

A very common fallacy, indeed. Though I presume the argument might be that individual businesses are free to fail due to misfeasance, whereas governments always manage to survive by forcing the governed to bear the price. In that sense government is the ultimate monopoly (it truly has no competition to its power.)

However, all the gospel about true freedom and personal responsibility, doesn't stand up to a basic smell test: most people are NOT business gurus, are NOT smart investors, are NOT good money managers, and are NOT instinctual capitalists or entrepreneurs. In a true laissez faire environment, therefore, MOST people are the natural marks for clever con men: it is a prescription for a pyramidal society where all the wealth is permanently concentrated at the pinnacle of the pyramid ("trickle down" is nothing but crude toilet humor.)

"In a true laissez faire environment, therefore, MOST people are the natural marks for clever con men: it is a prescription for a pyramidal society where all the wealth is permanently concentrated at the pinnacle of the pyramid ("trickle down" is nothing but crude toilet humor.)"

This is supposed to be a science based bbs. Where the science supporting your assertions?
I can agree with the adage 'fools and their money are soon parted', but I also agree with 'fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me'.
The nanny state that 'protects' people from their mistakes creates fools dependent upon the state. And that is precisely what such a government wants, useful idiots. Do you want more useful idiots to support socialism and AGW?

This is supposed to be a science based bbs.

But you wrote:

TR started socialism. FDR practiced fascism, a form of national socialism.

That's not science, that's three lies.

I can agree with the adage 'fools and their money are soon parted', but I also agree with 'fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me'.

You pretend not to know of Kim Peek and his kind of people. Why?
This is indeed a science-oriented forum. That's why nobody here agrees with you and your fundamentalist free market ideology.

This is supposed to be a science based bbs. Where the science supporting your assertions?

The evidence is literally all around you: the escalating collusion and commingling between Wall Street and Washington, and all that brings forth. You start with accumulation of money and power by the wealthiest 1%, at the expense of the other 99% of the population (look up "Income Inequality" and "Wealth Condensation" on Wikipedia.) Once enough power is accumulated by the oligarchy, the oligarchy effectively takes over and becomes the government (e.g. the "military-industrial complex" of Eisenhower's nightmares.) In the end, you have your "national socialism", or "corporate fascism" -- the one and only, assured and inevitable outcome of laissez faire ideology. It's not just U.S. In Russia, this literally happened within a single decade: they went from totalitarianism, to laissez faire mafia economy under Yeltsin, and from that dove right into nationalist corporate fascism under Putin.

This is supposed to be a science based bbs. Where the science supporting your assertions?

The evidence is literally all around you: the escalating collusion and commingling between Wall Street and Washington, and all that brings forth.

What does this have to do with free market capitalism?

The solution is not more government power but less.

This is supposed to be a science based bbs.

But you wrote:

TR started socialism. FDR practiced fascism, a form of national socialism.

That's not science, that's three lies.

I can agree with the adage 'fools and their money are soon parted', but I also agree with 'fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me'.

You pretend not to know of Kim Peek and his kind of people. Why?
This is indeed a science-oriented forum. That's why nobody here agrees with you and your fundamentalist free market ideology.

There are quite a few who agree with free markets: von Mises, Hayek, Thomas Sowell, and dozens of PhD economists around the world.
So far, socialist Keynesian policies are not turning around the economy. Even communist China understands the power of free markets. They have lower corporate taxes than the USA and their economy is growing.

What does this have to do with free market capitalism?

The solution is not more government power but less.

It is the inevitable evolution and the inescapable conclusion of "free market capitalism", in every bit analogous to how totalitarian dictatorship is the inevitable outcome of "communist revolution."

Both pure capitalism, and pure communism, are unstable dynamically and tend to devolve into a more stable and natural state of affairs -- which is usually anathema to the respective zealots. But c'est la vie. The governing force is the rank and ugly human nature, and given enough time, it wins every time.

What I'm trying to tell you, is that your ideology is disastrously utopian, utterly unrealistic, doomed to failure, dead on arrival, or whatever other cliche might make it simple as pie to you.

...von Mises, Hayek, Thomas Sowell, and dozens of PhD economists around the world.

Every bit analogous to the prophets of communism. And worse yet: they are both right! The communists are quite right: we shouldn't be working ourselves to death in exchange for money and material goods, climbing career and social ladders by stepping on the necks of our lessers -- we should be trying to enjoy life, and when we do work, it should be because we like it, and we should love each other and care for each other, and ask nothing in return (ask any Christian: they'll agree!) The free market ideologues are quite correct: we should all be responsible, and independent, and vibrantly individualistic, and energetic, and always hungry for success, and diligent, and law-abiding, and so on.

Problem is, aside from the ideologues (at least some of whom are also hypocrites), humanity in general is none of those things, and NEVER WILL BE. Denial of this reality always leads only to disaster.

That's why nobody here agrees with you and your fundamentalist free market ideology.

There are quite a few who agree with free markets:

Your special kind of semantic blindness made you overlook the word "here".

That's why nobody here agrees with you and your fundamentalist free market ideology.

There are quite a few who agree with free markets:

Your special kind of semantic blindness made you overlook the word "here".

How presumptuous of you!

You imply that educated technical individuals must support socialism?