Augustine2004's opinions on Lew Rockwell, Plato, and assorted other subjects

[Crow]

My apologies, I posted something in another thread that was meant for this thread. I can't copy it here because of a Tweb rule. I'm sorry, but if you want to see the post, please click here http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...postcount=1881

Moved it for you.

[Augustine2004]

Casually toss this bomb in a conversation with an environmentalist who is ranting about BP and see what happens: ‘Natural oil seeps into the ocean every year or so are probably comparable.’
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0513130944.htm

Well, come to think of it, maybe you had better not stay around to see what happens. I mean, don’t be too close.


* I’ve been scolded in another thread for suggesting a Rube Goldberg solution. Indeed, IIRC, the scolder was Crow. Pshaw! Look at this chart for our upcoming health care
http://www.house.gov/brady/pdf/Obamacare_Chart.pdf
OK, go ahead, eat crow.

[Augustine2004]

People are enthused about Angelo Codevilla's essay, "America's Ruling Class – And the Perils of Revolution." Click here for Gary North’s review
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north872.html
Gary calls the essay a ‘not-quite’ manifesto. I’m not sure what he has in mind, it’s clear enough what Angelo wants: the ruling class should give up power or be made to. Not all of its power– everyone should ideally have total power over himself and his property–but nearly so.


* Y’all know the US Government is not a friend of alternative medicine; it’s palsy-walsy with Big Pharma. But at least one exception is the USDA, at least once here:
“USDA examines diabetes benefits of cinnamon" Mike Stones, NutraIngredients-USA, 7/23/10, nutraingredients-usa.com
Keep those cinnamon rolls comin’.



* Regarding Wikileaks’ recent acts, Admiral Mike Mullen said, in part: ‘don’t put those who willingly go into harm’s way even further in harm’s way just to satisfy your need to make a point.‘
http://www.jcs.mil/speech.aspx?id=1432
A point is to show the harm we are doing to the Mideast civilians including babies!

Anyway, what’s lilpixelofterror’s take? Has she recently said anything about what things are like out there? Has it been a paradise for the Mideast civilians since we invaded Iraq the second time? Does all the collateral damage not include even one squall from one baby?

[Augustine2004]

Rob Lyons’ oped–a meditation on the Gulf oil spill-- http://www.spiked-online.com/index.p...n_article/9379
said, ‘The first lesson we should learn is that modern society has a capacity to fear the worst,’ and that we may overreact and in ways that cause more harm.

Rob didn’t discuss much how and why the USFG made us overreact and will cause more harm than otherwise in the long run. He does mention Michelle Obama’s PR efforts: “This led to the farcical situation where, after the Obama administration had spent weeks talking up the scale of the disaster, the first lady Michelle Obama was doing photo-ops to reassure the world that most of the area’s beaches were safe, clean and ‘open for business’.” But in the end all he said was this: “Above all, given society’s contemporary capacity for anxiety and overreaction, we need to be sceptical about every new declaration of doom, particularly when it is dressed up in the language of scientific ‘fact’.”

For one thing, a clearly skeptical Thomas diLorenzo in a LewRockwell.com blog asked whether Obamoola would return the $20 billion that he forced out of BP
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/63167.html
Many British pensioners are highly dependent on BP dividends. What would they do if BP is declared bankrupt?

You don’t need to be told that the USFG is a political animal, making decisions whether they make moral or economic sense or not.


* Wind farms in a part of Washington state killed far more birds and bats than the number of animals that died in the Gulf oil spill--same link above
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/63167.html
I think I can safely assert that government subsidies for wind farms worldwide have created a far bigger disaster for animals than the oil spill has. CAUTION: be very, very circumspect with political environmentalists in making opinions like that. Maintain safe distances at all times. [Disclaimer: I own shares in a minor oil company that operates far from the Gulf.]


* It may be a good idea to discuss Singapore so to show how a Maybury city-state would fare in a world like today’s. Singapore is far from being a Maybury place, but it might not be going too far to speculate what things would be like if everyone in Singapore tries to follow the Maybury precepts. Unfortunately, I just don’t have the time and money to study Singapore in detail. So, I think I will call it a day as far as the series ‘From Division to Property Rights’ is concerned. But questions and criticisms are welcome, like, ‘that’s daft!’


* Just found an interesting quote from Thomas Fuller: ‘The great end of life is not knowledge, but action.’ http://www.famousquotesandauthors.co...er_quotes.html


* Two segments of 60 Minutes involved the governments of the USA and Turkey, respectively
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6754650n
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6754652n
I think a case against the State could be built on these segments among others.

[Augustine2004]

Are the National Institutes of Health in violation of the Nuremberg code against human experimentation? Start with these items & decide for yourself:
"Tufts University Involvement in Golden Rice Feeding Trials" Open Letter from GM Free Cymru, 2/12/09, gmfreecymru.org [click on ‘Open Letters’ then do a search on ‘Tufts’]
“British Scientists Condemn Using Children in GM Food Trials as Unacceptable" Sean Poulter, Daily Mail, 2/17/09, dailymail.co.uk http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...cceptable.html

[Augustine2004]

40% of soldiers returned from the Mideast may have brain damage. http://www.technologyreview.com/biotech/20571/
Thus the actual casualty number may be 10x, possibly 20x, the official figure. The wars are costing us far more than the government is letting on, I fear. World War II was not that bad, as far as casualties go, by a mile.


* I’ve never seen any of Michael Moore’s movies, but I’ve read a few reviews like this one:
http://contrarianedge.com/2009/10/06...ue-love-story/
He’s got to know that he’s been presenting an inaccurate picture of the world, especially the question of capitalism versus socialism. Why would he? He did get rich, but he continues to crank out movie after movie despite his apparent depreciation of materialism. Cynical exploitation of people’s ignorance or lack of education? Or does he really hate humanity so much that he wants to kill everybody? Whatever–ugh!

[Augustine2004]

Jim Rogers, international investor extraordinarie, said, ‘As you know, more countries are worried about the dollar. More countries are starting to use other things to settle their debts. This is a process which is underway and will continue, there's no question. The US dollar is a terribly flawed currency. The US is not just the larger debtor nation in the world, it's the largest debtor nation in the history of the world.’
http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=37488
Folks, that is the beginning of hyperinflation. Now, I’m not really predicting it–yet. Maybe it won’t happen. But how could it not happen? The news that Wal Mart raised its average price 5.8% in July counters the news that an investor extraordinarie whose name I’m not sure I remember correctly is expecting no more than mild inflation for the next few years. And then there’s the announcement that the Fed is going to buy US Treasuries. That’s what Zimbabwe did with its money, only the Fed is doing with the world’s bank reserves (60% is US Treasuries).


* Division to property rights, a Maybury place in a non-Maybury world. Let me define a notem guy or guyette as a person who will not follow the Maybury precepts or a set of precepts similar to those. The em guys of are of course those who want to follow them. What are the ems to do with the notems? Whatever, division means that a few of the ems should be the ones to take the brunt of coping with the notems. For example, a clean version of Duane the Dog, TV star bounty hunter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duane_Chapman

How should em treatment of the notems be justified? If a notem protests that he is not getting fair treatment from ems, they could reply, ‘I was all for letting you have full control of your body and what little property you have consonant with letting others have the same full control of their property, plus you could have tried to finish what you promised to do. But, no, you had to be greedy for more or break your promises. Why the heck do you expect people to let you have your way or think they should?’ Maybe that will shut him up. [I think I did write something similar before but I can’t recall where or when.]

[Augustine2004]

Yo, lilpixieofterror! For many moons now your posts have not graced this thread, though I’ve posted items you may have wanted to comment on. Here’s the latest.

Bretigne Shaffer is a woman who authored this piece ‘Saving Women and Preventing Genocide: The Real Reasons We’re in Afghanistan Now’
http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/shaffer-br7.1.1.html

Part of her argument is that we don’t really know whether we are saving lives or not. My version of the argument shall be more general than that. We are not gods that can weigh the pros and cons of using violence for good. Sometimes we can do a good job, but I’d say usually not. Usually none of the participants in a war is obviously one that Christians ought to support. Yet our government may pick one side and claim that we must join the war for any number of reasons:

‘Look at what they are doing to women there!’
‘For liberty and justice for all!’
‘Remember the Maine!’
‘For national security and to punish the perpetrators of [9-11 or some such outrage]!’
‘To keep [Saddam or someone else like him] from getting WMDs or using them!’
‘We need to purify the world for the Millennium!’

We went to save South Vietnam from communism. The domino theory said that other countries would also fall unless we rescued South Vietnam. But its people could not see any substantial difference between the USFG and its puppet Vietnamese government and Ho Chi Minh’s government. We said we had to win the people’s hearts and minds, but in practice we did stuff that undermined that objective. For one thing, Nixon bombed Cambodia; Shaffer says that paved the way to the Khmer Rouge’s reign of terror.

So, what happened since we withdrew? Today, both Vietnam and Cambodia are growing, on the way to prosperity, while we are deep in recession and on the way to destitution.


A more general question is this: should the government take proactive measures or not in any case? An even more general question is this: how should the uncertainties of the future be handled, on an individual basis or else? I mean, should the Maybury world rather than the State world (like this world) be allowed to decide what to do with the uncertainties? My answer is, the individuals of the Maybury world. Here’s my argument.

[I’ve already written much on risk and uncertainty and insurance in Tweb threads, but parts were years ago. Searching Tweb isn’t convenient.]
Life is essentially taking chances. If one is not taking chances, he’s dead! Or comatose or a chattel slave. Part of making choices is evaluating the set of uncertainties in each choice, though we may not have perfect knowledge of them. Every possible course of action has its own set of uncertainties. (‘Risk’ may be a better term here, but I do not mean what Rothbard called ‘actuarial risk’–what actuaries are supposed to be able to estimate. Rather, I mean what could be called unmeasurable or uninsurable risk–but they are [i]not[i] good terms. H.-H. Hoppe wrote that the actor holds cash as ‘insurance’ against what he fears may happen in the future [not necessarily specific and definite occurrences–like a house fire--but general fears] [The Economics and Ethics of Private Property; look up in the index: ‘uncertainty’]. With the understanding that I mean both actuarial risk and uncertainty I will use ‘risk’ from now on.)

Even staying in your bed has its own set of risks. Risk cannot be transferred from a person to another person, but he can often transform his current set of risks by economic exchange, as in insurance or the futures market.

The State can and does have a role to play in every individual’s coping with risk, but the question is this: what should the role be? I say, zero. First, as said before, risk cannot be eliminated, though it could be transformed; certainly we may surmise that some persons may seek to transform their own sets of risks to ones that they feel more comfortable with. If the State should have the goal of finding sets of risks that the people would feel the most comfortable with, surely that’s impossible. The State bureaucrats would have to know what set of risks any given person would feel comfortable with, then they would somehow devise a plan to achieve that goal. I cannot see how they can do those things other than to guess. The chances of being successful, even if only moderately, must be virtually zero, I think. Moreover, even if the State somehow did succeed momentarily, it must inevitably fail eventually, when people and their lives change. There is no way for anyone to measure or judge how successful the State is as compared to any given alternative State action.

Second, suppose the goal is not to find the most comfortable sets of risks. After all, comfortableness is not the sole criterion in selecting some action. For example, gambles can be very uncomfortable, yet the ones taking them may hope that they will be the best actions to take. More later.

Third, assuming the State in essence really consists of a ruling class and a bureaucracy (not to mention the allies of the ruling class), the bureaucrats will only follow a set of rules laid down by the ruling class [L. von Mises, Bureaucracy {cited several posts ago}], regardless of whether those rules are appropriate to any given situation or not. Thus, people will be frequently exposed to risks that they would chose to avoid or dodge in a Maybury world. For example, huge tax raises, myriads of regulations, and seemingly stupid enforcement of laws (such as shutting down little girls’ lemonade stands though nobody had complained of getting sick), ‘regime uncertainty’
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/95589.html
and central-bank control of the money supply (see just below)

One reason why we have money is the lack of knowledge of the future and the fact that taking risks is unavoidable, see Chapter 5, Section 2 in The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, already cited above. I suspect that the topic of what the State does to our risk taking by controlling the money supply to benefit the Parasite Class would entail a book, so I’ll just hope you have by now a fairly good idea of what I’m driving at here.

I will try to think of an example of division of ‘labor’ that clearly involves risk-taking. Success will give me a shot at winning the Nobel Prize for Economics. But do I really? I already cited the case of Duane the Dog in a previous post. Go, fetch the prize!


Next up: when to take precautions? Which precautions? Of course I have in mind Bush’s doctrine of preventive violence.

[Augustine2004]

[This post is not what I said is 'next up.' Different subject]

Japan is said to be in a liquidity trap, and that is claimed to be the cause of Japan’s economic stagnation. Generally speaking, expansive monetary policy becomes ineffective for some reason. It’s as if Japan’s economy has become a black hole, sucking in all the new yens and giving no love–ups!–yen back [kidding]. One type of trap is that the economy, for whatever reason, most likely fear, has taken to saving money ‘excessively’. Call it the Silas Marner economy.

Someone pointed out that the Fed can buy up all the USA debt . . . and forgive it!
http://blog.mises.org/9836/take-adva...iquidity-trap/
Whee, instant prosperity! Creditors get their money back, and debtors become unburdened. Prosper and live long in happiness and joy.

Problem is, money is not real wealth. It is first of all a medium of exchange. It does make economic calculation possible, but that is secondary. Moreover, for economic calculation to make a big difference, much time must pass, after much production that uses real savings is made.

To be sure, if we were to suppose that everyone but one was to send that one a gold coin, then he’d have plenty of gold. But he can’t eat gold; can get sick anyway; can’t travel in the world; the gold can’t entertain or teach him; and so on. He needs to spend it. Also, a poor guy must labor to have food, shelter, clothes, etc., and it’s possible he can do so without money at all. Yes, we are better off using money; it does give us benefits beyond the barter economy. But there has to be a solid relationship between the money in the economy and the economy itself. You should know by now that the ‘money’ that the Fed creates does not have that relationship. It’s as if the government was to pass a law making Monopoly money legal tender.

So, why is Japan’s economy so stagnant? Less productivity per person owing in part to the advanced ages of the population, but mainly the stupidity of the policies of the government, such as what is called subsidizing idleness (unemployment benefits) http://mises.org/journals/scholar/weingarten.pdf

[Augustine2004]

When to take precautions? Which precautions? Of course I have in mind Bush’s doctrine of preventive violence.

I believe I’ve shown that the State should have no part in our choosing among actions, each of which has its own set of risks. Indeed, there should be no State, period. Nevertheless, two questions remain: When is preventive violence OK? If sometimes, what are the criteria for it to be OK?

I think that if you believe yourselves to be in clear and present danger of losing your life, some part of your body, or part of your property (or anyway partial control of it)--then counter violence or threatening it may be OK. However, it should not be disproportionate, and it is at least questionable if the danger is less than clear and present. But certainly taking precautions when possible is OK if they do not involve violence and are cost-effective. As a rule, watch out for situations that should be steered clear of. For example, at night in a city, don’t stay in dark areas too long.

So we have two reasons why Bush’s doctrine of preventive violence is wrong. First, the State should not do anything (it should not exist, but I will discuss later what it should do as long as it does exist and still has widespread support). Second, not even individuals should use disproportionate preventive violence when the danger in question is not clear and present.

Take Iran. Israel does seem to have reason to fear Iran’s nuclear power program.
http://www.salon.com/news/politics/w...erg/index.html
Are Israel and its allies justified in beating the war drums, though, for air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities? What should a Maybury country having resources somewhat comparable to the USA do with Israel? Help it? Help Iran? Or refuse to take sides–perhaps do nothing? Try to be peacemakers?

It’s quite easy to build a case based on suppositions to justify preventive violence. That fella behind the tree might attack you with a weapon. You can’t see his face; all you can see are his legs. They are on the ground, except one is bent, as though he is just resting. But, you never know, he may suddenly spring up . . . Well, certainly it could be reasonable for you to give the tree a wide berth, and check that your weapon is ready for defense. But must you immediately blast away at the tree with the gun, particularly if the fella has not moved yet?

Next up: What should Israel do with Iran? What should people in the Maybury country do?

[Augustine2004]

Man, can you believe Big Pharma greed!? ‘Technically, with the classification of so many new disorders, we will all have disorders.’ Run your eye through the following citations:

"Mental health experts ask: Will anyone be normal?" Kate Kelland, Reuters Health, 7/27/10, reutershealth.com
"Issues for DSM-V: Should Obesity Be Included as a Brain Disorder?" American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 164, No 5, May 2007, ajp.psychiatryonline.org
"Is Rage a Mental Disorder?" Remy Melina, Live Science, 7/21/10, livescience.com

What name should we give to the Big Pharma greed? ‘Greed for Money Disorder’ (GMD)? What drug will Big Pharma suggest for that? Or develop? Keep on reading this thread for exciting new news!


* Free Manning! Free Vanunu!

That woman whose nose was cut off–was that really to follow a Taliban order? What evidence do we have it’s not an ally of the USA: the Tajik, Uzbek, or Hazara, all who mistreat women as badly as the Taliban do if not worse?
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis200.html
Funny how soon after WikiGate (wikileaks) that unfortunate woman’s plight should come to light.


* Interesting example of the efficacy of division of labor. Woody Leonhard reported a finding by the Verizon Business RISK data crime investigation team: More than 85% of data records that were stolen may be attributable to organized crime. The finding suggests productivity is 5+ to 1.


* This is an item I’d be amazed lilpixieofterror would deign to comment on here: Soldiers are not to access wikileaks.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/63950.html


* The employed-to-population ratio is the best employment measurement if you ignore the quality of the jobs, I think. Chart shows a huge drop, the most precipitous since WWII
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...283794598.html


* Do you know what’s happening to Roger Clemens, the pitcher who denied before Congress that he was a steroid user? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...-congress.html
Why are people not mad? Congress is a liars’ club that made it a federal crime for anyone to lie to it. I’m mad enough to want to leave the USA, that’s no lie.

[Augustine2004]

What should Israel do with Iran? What should people in the Maybury country do?

It may be proper and prudent for Israel to develop contingency plans to deal with Iranian aggression and employ diplomatic means as much as possible. But I very much doubt Israel has a good case for a preventive and preemptive air strikes at Iran’s nuclear facilities now. As long as Iran permits international inspections of them, a watchful but otherwise passive attitude is justified: reactive rather than proactive. (In this report
http://www.worldtribune.com/worldtri...0810_08_23.asp
this sentence appears: ‘[Officials] said the International Atomic Energy Agency has been monitoring the delivery of nuclear fuel to the $1 billion Bushehr reactor.)

Maybury people having diplomatic skill should certainly (hypothetically) volunteer their meditation services. So far I can’t think of anything else they should do besides doing nothing except pray and write articles that warn about consequences of preemptive preventive action.

Next up: Drunk driving: outlaw it or not?

[Augustine2004]

A question surfaced after I read David Gordon’s discussion of intellectual property (IP) in his review of Libertarianism Today by Jacob H. Huebert
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gordon/gordon80.1.html
Why can’t one sell say a book with the following ‘copyright notice:’

Any sale of this book does not constitute a transfer of all property rights to the buyer. No one is to make copies of this book to sell without first entering into a contract with the author of this book or his heirs for resale rights. A copy or copies may be made only for the buyer’s benefit. In the event that this copy is abandoned or lost [‘deowned’ is a good term, is it not?], ownership of this copy reverts to the author or his heirs.

Not sure that is airtight. Undoubtedly someone like Stephan Kinsella would be rofl But, I think you get the idea.


* Come on now! The anti-greed pill is URGENTLY needed NOW. Here’s yet another reason
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-10955522


* Obama for Last POTUS. Maybe eventually we’ll have nice vacations too.

(probably my only complaint about a lot of libertarians I've read is the sheer hate on they have for cops)

[I am responding here because it’s an appropriate thread and the response would have been off topic in the original thread anyway.]
Please, citations with quotations. You may use Mises.org or lewrockwell.com

[Augustine2004]

In ‘Statistics: Achilles’ Heel of Government’
http://mises.org/daily/2589
Rothbard is not quite correct. Achilles except his heel was invincible. His mother had held him by that part when she dipped him in the river that made bathers invincible. So, when someone shot a poisoned arrow and struck Achilles on that heel, he died. Now, what arrow could anyone shoot to kill the State? Anyway, the State is not invincible. We the people can and must get together, and dissolve the State.

Otherwise, the essay is Rothbardian gold. This post draws an implication from it. He points out that the State needs statistics: how many acres of forest, cotton plants, hemp, etc. How many rivers and where. Lakes? Gold mines? Tons of coal taken out of mines? How many boys aged 10 years? How many old folks in retirement homes? And so on and on and on. Without adequate statistics the State could not keep up the pretense of rationally planning the economy. Indeed, the absence of statistics must almost inevitably result in chaos.

I think Rothbard is correct that collecting and organizing statistical data as much as the State requires is costly. Cost-effective? I think not. Small businesses, called the backbone of the economy
http://mises.org/journals/fm/fm287.pdf
find them onerous, according to Rothbard. I think we can go further and suspect that the State really does not now have all the data it needs to have at least a lost-child’s chance of truly rationally planning the economy–and probably will never.

The implication that I see is, we don’t need the State to plan the economy to make it work better. Consider the hypothetical extreme: All our waking moments go into the measuring, recording, transmitting, analyzing of statistics. In short order we will have no economy at all! How about the other extreme: Each business (including single-person companies) only does these statistical chores as it sees fit to serve its own needs–or buys data from other businesses. I think then the economy will last indefinitely. Might there not be what is called the sweet spot–an optimal level of statistics-related activities, perhaps in between those two extremes? Suppose so, but some of the chores are mandated by the State. That is absurd! The quantity not to mention quality of the data surely falls short of what is required–if at all possible–to rationally plan the economy. The State can’t possibly know enough. To know enough would be to require too much data. So, what do we need the State for? It would be only a parasite.

[Augustine2004]

In an CSI episode, a baddie used helium to disguise his voice while talking to peachy Marj Helgenberger and a goodie. Maybe baddies in the future will have to use some other device for that purpose, thanks to a stupid government law.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sc...m-2059357.html


* David Galland used a striking analogy to show how hyperinflation can occur and why it may: ‘Remember Bernie Madoff? How many people do you think tried to give him money the day after he was arrested, versus desperately scrambled [sic] to get their money out of his sticky web? The answers are “No one” and “Everyone” – that’s what happens when people lose faith in a currency.’ I don’t know what may be the trigger or the fuse, but conditions for an explosion, uh, hyperinflation are getting ripe.

Riots and strikes are likely to happen, like in 1968 France. Then and there de Gaulle was so scared, he flew to Germany to confer with the general of the French occupation force there. A coup d’etat and/or revolution is likely also.


* Questions you readers are afraid to ask:
What about a world divided into miniStates? We then have problems of coordination. If we did have perfect coordination, we would really have the world State after all. So, each mini-State may work at crosspurposes with each other. Chaos! It may nevertheless be possible the world would be better than our actual world now, but that seems improbable.
Might it not be possible, though, for one or more mini-State to do well? Sure, anything is possible. A better question would be, what policies are those states following (ought to follow)? Surely prosperity is not a random thing.


* "FDA Proposes Withdrawal of Low Blood Pressure Drug" FDA News Release, 8/16/10, fda.gov The drug has been on the market so long, it’s gone generic! Great timing, FDA! What’s more, the reason for withdrawing the drug is that no trial was conducted to test its effectiveness, though the manufacturer had promised to conduct several. For 14 years doctors prescribed a poorly known drug, apparently thinking that it has been thoroughly tested. After all, it has FDA approval!!


* The government said animal fat was not healthy for you. Thus ‘humanity’s greatest health disaster was borne.’
–– http://www.healthiertalk.com/facts-a...ight-loss-2267


* An investment newsletter quoted Small Business Administration stats:
Small businesses:

Represent 99.7% of all employer[s]
Employ just over half of all private-sector employees
Pay 44% of total U.S. private payroll
Have generated 64% of net new jobs over the past 15 years
Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP)
Hire 40% of high-tech workers (such as scientists, engineers and computer programmers)
Are 52% home-based and 2% franchises
Made up 97.3% of all identified exporters and produced 30.2% of the known export value in FY 2007.
Small firms produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large-firm patents to be among the 1% most cited.

Unfortunately Big Business and Big Government are bedmates . . .


* What I’d just read was shockingly surprising, despite all that I’ve written about the speedy productivity of a Maybury-like world compared to our present world:
analyses of the recent wikileaks release http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewr...ves/64855.html

Another reason to prefer a Maybury world is the insanity of our laws and regulations exposed in books like Go Directly To Jail: The Criminalization of Almost Everything, ed Gene Healy, 2004. Merely skipping a stone on a pond could get you 15 years in jail, because stones are pollutants according to the Clean Water Act (page 21, 24). Also see
http://wildlifelaw.unm.edu/fedbook/fwpca.html (Thanks, Richard Maybury).


* A small region of Indonesia is trying to switch to gold and silver coins from paper money.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...70689934.html?
I’ll look for more news. People are not understanding, so this attempt could fail; I hope not!


* Does anybody know what’s happening in Brazil, since a Green Party candidate for president seems to be running so strongly? ‘Farms for Brazilians only!’
http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N24255820.htm


* Yo hoho lilpixieofterror, hast thou seen The Desert Fox?