Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
lrcammarosano
MemberThere is some competition in state corporation laws with Nevada and Delaware in a “race to the bottom” to create the most corporation friendly laws to incorporate.
Interesting that in order to claim limited liability protection as an entity you must be sanctioned by the state as a registered corporation.
As Tom points out the free market could make these risk allocations instead of corporate laws,
Question then, would the state or private arbitrators enforce such risk allocation disputes?
Memberand Tyler too, by Robert Seager II
I just unearthed this book in my collection.
I’ve never read it and have had it for many years.
The notes say he was one of our most underrated Presidents BUT the author’s preface says Tyler was a fan of states rights and a strict constitutionalist to which the author says that these ideas were not in the best interests of the United States “at the time”
The author also notes that Tyler opposed the national bank which the author thinks was needed. The author states that he tried to write the book in a tone that was not “hostile or patronizing”
The author goes on to say he was not a successful president and could have become one if he dropped the states rights and anti bank stuff!
I will take a read of this book and see how it is..MemberFrom the 10th Amendment Center on Lincoln’s War
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2009/05/04/lincolns-war/MemberI would have no problem with Fractional Reserve Banking if it did not have the blessing of the state.
If banks and central banks were not chartered and “allowed” to loan out money based on their reserves in excess of those reserves, they would have to compete in the free market with other investments and bailments.
Clearly you would not bring your valuables to a storage unit on the agreement that the owner of the facility might loan out your stuff and subject to how well he is managing the unit, or how many friends he has in government you might get your stuff back.
In a circumstance where fractional reserve banking is not backed by law, banks engaging in such practices would have to offer interest rates that would be far higher than a bank that safeguarded your cash for perhaps a fee with no interest.
If a bank had decent management they could pull off lending out more money than their depositors give them.The moral hazard is the central bank or the FDIC will bail out a bank that makes too many mistakes with its depositors money. If these types of banks failed it would send a message to the investors to be more prudent and that there is market risk in lending to a bank who in turn lends out your money in excess of its total amount of deposits.
But I would not out law such banks.
Perversely, through state sanctioning of fractional reserve banking and the FDIC people are convinced that its safe to take next to no interest from banks that take your money and “promise” to pay it back as long as too many other depositors don’t want their money back too at the same time.
For more on fractional reserve banking see
Mises on Money by Gary North
Austrian Economics a Primer by Dr. Eamonn Butler
The Case Against the Fed By Murray Rothbard-calls fractional reserve banking insidiousMemberInteresting discussion as to how far the government needs to be involved , if at all, in the enforcement of private contracts
anarchocapitalists like Rothbard would argue none as private agencies could be entrusted with the task.
See “Anatomy of the State” available at the Mises store and “Society with out a State”
available at Lew Rockwell.com http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard133.htmlFrederic bastiat and Ron Paul would opt to entrust the government with few functions one of them being the protection of private property and enforcement of contracts through the law courts
Bastiat in The Law viewed “the law perverted” as it acts against its initial primary purpose and rather than protecting its citizens from plunder, instead chooses to be the instrument of plunder itself!
Ron Paul in Trading Freedom for Security: Drifting toward a Police State wrote:
Gov has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, voluntarism & private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these rules.What’s your view-limited government or none?
The argument against limited government is that it starts that way then grabs more and more power as politicians are in charge and are (unless they are Ron Paul) not interested in devolving themselves of power.…as James Madison wrote, if men were angels…
MemberThe limited liability provision in corporations encourages at least three things that are good:
-risk taking by companies that individuals might other wise not take;
-stewardship by companies of other investors’ money for which they will be rewarded if they do right by them and grow the company and its profits; and
-investor vigilance to make sure that they entrust money to the right management with the right ideas-knowing that their only recourse to a failed investment is a) in the case of a loan to the company, the assets of the company where they may get pennies on the dollar or b) in the case of an equity investment-probably nothing as the equity investor come just about last in bankruptcyThere are cases at law that allow shareholders to “pierce the corporate veil” and attach the assets of the shareholders and managers
All in all the concept of limited liability corporations has dramatically increased trade and innovation.
There are some abuses but most are because of fraud which can be dealt with in the courts (public or private)
MemberThe size of the underground labor market and what impact the existence of unions or the threat of unions has on labor costs need to be taken into account in determining US labor costs.
Also the United States’ labor costs extend beyond salaries. Each full time employee has additional expenses employers must bear related to their compensation packages including, health and dental insurance and social security taxes. (some of these are offered to be competitive with unions)
US employers have to add to their labor costs the cost of complying with state and Federal work place regulations which involve training and sometimes physical alteration of the workspace. We must also average in the costs of lawsuits and fines for non compliance.
We start with a simple Crusoe example, move towards simple medium of exchange examples and build progressively towards more complex situations that devolve increasingly away from fair exchanges and towards handouts, taxes, plunder and bailouts. The latter examples involve third party interference (by governments and unions) of transactions that are intended to be the result of the free actions between two parties.
MemberInteresting that the Confederates put the exact same “2nd amendment” language in their constitution.
EXCEPT the confederates used the upper case for “State”
This gives support to the argument that the right to bear arms was required to protect the rights of the sovereign individuals (as Mr. Woods states :”The peoples of the states are the sovereigns”) who as members of one of the sovereign States of the Confederacy (which sovereignty is made explicit in the Confederate Constitution) would need such right to bear arms.
The timing of the adoption of this provision is important as the confederates clearly had in mind that they might be attacked by a tyrannical foreign/domestic invader,
MemberExcellent analysis!
What is often missing in critiques and defenses of capitalism or more aptly named the “free market”, is the choice provided to the consumer. Most defenses focus on the entrepreneur or capitalist and his behaviour -often portrayed as rapacious.
The behaviour of the consumer, which is often equal to the rapaciousness of the capitalist or entrepreneur, illicits less attention.
In a Marxist or feudal system choices are limited because there are no entrepreneurs competing for the economics affections of consumers.
In such a system the consumer is not free to make economic choices and such a right would be of no effect as these systems do not produce choices.
Thankfully, for consistency purposes, Marxist and feudal systems also restrict the personal freedom of consumers to make economic choices along with the right of entrepreneurs to compete for consumers’ economic affections.
As such Marxist and feudal systems are consistent-no one makes other than the state or a designated producer and no one gets to choose anything other than what the state or its designated producers can produce.
In a vibrant free market, entrepreneurs produce a wide array of products at different quality and price points. Both entrepreneurs are free to produce and consumers are free to choose.
This type of abundant market is missing in a Marxist or feudal system.
In an economy such as our own which has elements of a free market (where entrepreneurs produce a wide array of products at difference price points) and also elements of state control where government can favor one competitor over another through tax breaks, subsidies, bailouts etc, the consumer while free to make economic choices is limited by the choices that the government allows.
If consumers are against the greedy capitalists, they can very easily take that frustration out in the market place.
Don’t like Steve Jobs-don’t go see his Pixar movies or buy his apple products.
Capitalists only get rich by serving the masses and providing them with things they want. If enough “vote with their dollars” Pixar and Apple will lose their dominant market positionsA problem arises however when a company becomes through political bribery under the wing of the government.
For example, don’t like Goldman Sachs? There isn’t much you can do. You can not bank there. But that is not where they make their money-they are going to make their money as a result of their favored position in acting as a dealer in US Treasuries, or in the underwriting of municipal bonds or proprietary trading.
Ditto for GE. Don’t like their power? You can try not buying their light bulbs, but that won’t work as their light bulbs are mandated by an act of congress-so you have to buy them.
In a true free market the excesses of the entrepreneur or “greedy capitalists” are kept in check by the choices that free consumers have. If prices are raised or quality suffers consumers will vote with their feet and either not buy form the offending company or buy from a competitor.
True free market capitalism is self correcting and sustaining.
The mess we are in is because “greedy capitalists” have formed unholy alliances with government to protect their money making positions or to grant them new ones.
In a true free market the survival of the fittest mentality only applies to the producers, not the consumers. Producers must do what ever they can to please consumers or THEY shall persish.
Unfortunately, producers have learned to use government to protect themselves against the ravages of competition and consumers suffer.
MemberSeems to me that while the Roman republic did not give much of a say to the average roman, power was devolved among the Senate and counsuls
Once Ceasar effectively demolished the republic having gained popular support for his own tyranny (via his military imperial conquests), the Roman culture became a far more statist, collectivist society, having giving up on the concept of what was good for the people, instead choosing to focus on what was best for Rome
MemberOne element missing in Jeff’s analysis is the impact of minimum wage laws and unions
Wages in a free market are determined by the productivity of that labor
Wages in a controlled economy are determined by minimum wage laws and unions.Unions can exist in a free market and can perhaps facilitate in the price discovery of the cost of labor. HOWEVER if there are pro union laws on the books that give labor an advantage -ie such as in non right to work states, or regulations that prohibit a company from taking advantage of lower wages in right to work states,the true price of labor is distorted.
The US/Vietnam example assumes free markets in both countries.
Minimum wage laws and pro union laws prevent a true valuation of labor in the united states
MemberThe mistake progressives make is that a large federal regulatory body is necessary to act as a check against big business. Little do they know the larger the regulatory body the more susceptible to be co-opted and bribe by big business.
As a result you get the worst of all possible worlds-large bloated companies protected by government regulations (the smaller companies can’t afford to comply)
and implied bailouts and favors.These types of companies do not serve customers best as their prime focus is not on serving customers, lowering prices or innovating, but rather maintaining their position via influencing the government to keep competitors at bay.
As Mises points out these types of businesses are the most anti democratic and antithetical to a free market.
In a free market, consumers vote with their dollars (or other fiat currencies).
In a controlled or planned economy, consumer choice is limited.MemberThe direct election of senators takes away the states’ ability to be represented adequately. Prior to the 17th amendment the state legislatures elected the senators to represent them in the senate.
Now the senators can be lobbied easily and remain in power for 6 years representing mostly special interests on a national level rather than representing their states.Here is just one article on the subject
http://mises.org/daily/533MemberThat’s when it started in earnest 1900-1919 with Wilson’s “make the world safe for democracy” rationale for entering wwI , the creation of the fed, direct election of senators, creation of the IRS, league of nations, prohibition,national parks
MemberWhat’s the difference between a high school graduate and a college graduate- About $150K in debt!
http://tiny.cc/79fgfw -
AuthorPosts