Seeking Alpha

jhooper

jhooper
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View jhooper's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]
    "that previously dumped water contaminated with high levels of mercury straight into the Mississippi River "

    This is known as the failure of communism. Since everyone owned the river, no one owned the river. As such, there were no property rights to violate. Gov is responsible for protecting property rights. Since property rights for the river were never established, the incentive provided is the same in communist countries, get it all before the next guy does, and the result is the total waste of the resource.

    What you and SU keep conflating is the proper role for gov and the improper role for gov. You support all the things the gov shouldn't do, and none of the things it should do.

    As I noted before this is real mouth foaming rhetoric, and if you want to have credibility on an investing website, you have to stop saying mouth foaming things.
    Feb 24, 2015. 09:21 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]


    Just repeating your accusations does not mean your proposed solution is logical.

    Your problem is the contrived notion you have of market failure. Noting that there is no perfect production method or that people have not achieved post scarcity does not indicate that the market has failed. First of all, the market never fails. It just is. Its just the reality we all live in. Its the some total of all the actions we engage in to survive. We do that to best of our ability to convert resources into assets.

    So there is no such thing as market failure. The real question is how free from force is the market or how polluted with force it is. The freer it is, the more prosperous it is. The more coerced it is, the more protectionist it is, and the poorer it is. Freedom from force means people must discover productivity via prices. That makes them more productive, which allows them to have more consumption which gives them a higher standard of living. Your approach of a protectionist approach that creates a rich ruling elite that gets richer and richer while everyone else gets poorer and poorer has been tried over and over (and is still being tried over and over) and it has proven to be a miserable failure.

    That's the point of gov. Its to protect you from force so you are free to produce and discover new ways of production. That's why we have laws against murder and intentionally killing customers. If products are killing customers, and people want that stopped, but yet they keep on buying products that kill them because they have not choice, then you could provide that choice.

    According to you, and people of your bent, there are just waiting in the wings with the knowledge to make the products people want. Well, then, to prove your point, just go make the products. You don't need any laws. You will gain 100% market share. So why don't you do this?
    Feb 24, 2015. 09:17 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]
    "company as evidence that this is harmful to society"

    Just repeating your accusations does not mean your proposed solution is logical.

    Your problem is the contrived notion you have of market failure. Noting that there is no perfect production method or that people have not achieved post scarcity does not indicate that the market has failed. First of all, the market never fails. It just is. Its just the reality we all live in. Its the some total of all the actions we engage in to survive. We do that to best of our ability to convert resources into assets.

    So there is no such thing as market failure. The real question is how free from force is the market or how polluted with force it is. The freer it is, the more prosperous it is. The more coerced it is, the more protectionist it is, and the poorer it is. Freedom from force means people must discover productivity via prices. That makes them more productive, which allows them to have more consumption which gives them a higher standard of living. Your approach of a protectionist approach that creates a rich ruling elite that gets richer and richer while everyone else gets poorer and poorer has been tried over and over (and is still being tried over and over) and it has proven to be a miserable failure.

    That's the point of gov. Its to protect you from force so you are free to produce and discover new ways of production. That's why we have laws against murder and intentionally killing customers. If products are killing customers, and people want that stopped, but yet they keep on buying products that kill them because they have not choice, then you could provide that choice.

    According to you, and people of your bent, there are just waiting in the wings with the knowledge to make the products people want. Well, then, to prove your point, just go make the products. You don't need any laws. You will gain 100% market share. So why don't you do this?
    Feb 24, 2015. 09:17 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    "We aren't looking for the best possible alternative in a utopian world"

    Isn't it interesting that gov can create a utopia by eliminating market failures and by implication all mistakes, suddenly, when it becomes apparent that it cannot do this, and it winds up causing more of a mess than what it was supposedly going to fix, all of a sudden, we hear we aren't looking for a utopia.

    I guess it all depends on what you mean my utopia. People flooding across the board from a socialist narco state may have a different definition than those not living in the socialist narco state.

    If you mean utopia to mean a world of post scarcity in which no human action is required for consumption, then yeah, I could see that as unlikely as well.

    However, if we define utopia to mean a place where productivity provides a standard of living far higher than what you find in highly taxed and regulated economies or where in a for profit city there is practically no crime to speak of, then that is certainly achievable and has been achieved.

    I guess there is no end to the doom and gloomers being proved wrong.
    Feb 24, 2015. 09:04 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    "Ain't nothing perfect"

    Well, there is no post scarcity, at least not yet, but in the human mind is an infinite possibility of learning. As the learning curve goes up, the cost curve goes down. Overtime waste, abuse, and fraud become more expensive than production, and thus such things become more and more of a rarity.

    The trend is more towards a free economy. That is an economy free for force. Abuse and fraud rely on force, and as force becomes more expensive than production and voluntary cooperation, force fades and so too do abuse and fraud.

    There ain't nothing perfect, at least not yet, but every day we learn how to have more and work less.

    http://econ.st/17V2Lub
    Feb 24, 2015. 06:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]
    "Repeat after me; fallacy of composition.."

    That's only true for you.

    OK, so if all of these companies are INTENTIONALLY killing their customers, and you know they are, and customers know they are, and you know ways to make products so that you are not INTENTIONALLY killing people, the logical course of action for you is to start a competing nonkilling company and you will gain 100% market share. Why don't you do this? Apparently you know what these so called market failures are, and supposedly your precious gov regulators know what they are, so you don't have to make a law to make your competitors better, all you guys have to do is start the companies that you know ill fix the so called market failure. Again, why don't you do this?

    "in your ideologue world these kind of market failures simply do not exist.. "

    Apparently you know about them, and you have clearly outlined above what is necessary to correct them, so why aren't you doing that?

    What you are talking about is not market failures, but no failures of any kind. What you are talking about is post scarcity, where people have all knowledge and never make mistakes.

    Again, if a company is INTENTIONALLY killing its customers, that is murder. Gov protects life and limb. We already have regulations for that. So, if you know these companies are committing murder, then the states, who have the criminal power, can arrest these people, you can submit your iron clad evidence, and they will be punished. Since you are not doing this, the obvious conclusion is you don't have such evidence. If its not intentional, then its because its your so called market failure. As such since you know how to correct that, then you will get rich doing so. Since you aren't doing that either, then the logical conclusion is you can't.

    So, if you and your regulators can't do either of these things, then its logical that your accusations are unfounded and that instant death is not a successful business model.

    Take a look at the FHLB's eligible collateral list.

    http://bit.ly/17V1KlL

    No where on here will find the FHLB willing to accept as collateral companies that poison people. You know why? Because intentionally killing people is not a successful business model. In fact, banks won't even lend on restaurants because making food that people love enough to make the establishment successful is really, really hard. Much less a restaurant that will kill you.

    "Do you always know which companies are poisoning you?"

    Of course you do. If you are standing in line, and everyone that buys the product drops dead in front of you, you know that what they are consuming is killing them. What you are describing is risk.

    Do you ever know that each time you get in car that it won't be your last trip? What you are arguing is perfection. No harm of any kind ever, and that there are actually people in the world that have perfect knowledge, its just that everyone else is too stupid to put them in charge.

    So, like I said, if they really did have this perfect knowledge, they would use it to make themselves gogillionaires, yet you want us to believe that they have to wait to be put in charge to do that.

    What you are expressing is crazy talk. This is an investing website. If you want to have credibility, you can't engage in crazy talk. Suggesting that there are omniscient people on the planet that can't prevent all harms, but yet somehow that haven't been put in charge yet, even though they are omniscient, is crazy talk. Suggesting that killing your customers is a successful business strategy, when making food that most everyone will like is so rare that you can't even get a loan, is also crazy talk. Also, suggesting that companies are intentionally murdering people, yet no evidence can be found to prove this, is also crazy talk. Suggesting that no one knows about these market failures, yet you can point out what no one knows, is also crazy talk.

    Here's the bottom line. The more a gov regulates things it can regulate, like making the perfect business, the less it regulates the things it can regulate, like sending people to jail for intentionally murdering them. The less it regulates for protecting property, the more price is polluted, the more price is polluted, the less people can calculate for investment, the less investment there is, the less productivity labor has, and as labor becomes less productive, the worse the economy does.

    Let me help you on the path to credibility. Note how the countries where gov tends to regulate what it can regulate, are higher in the index and also prove to be the more prosperous countries. The empirical evidence is clear. As such, QED.

    http://bit.ly/ysKYDN

    I caution people in making investment decisions based on crazy talk.
    Feb 24, 2015. 06:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]
    "False analogy."

    Yeah, nice try.

    "For instance, it might be the company poisoning the people with lead."

    Again, if a company could be successful poisoning people, then no company would ever fail. Also, this also assumes that willfully poisoning people is not against the law. Do you actually think there are no laws against murder.

    This is just doom and gloom fear mongering to justify other price regulations that are nothing more than protectionist measures. This is all based on specious reasoning.

    Also, think what this says. It says people are too stupid not to buy from a company when its clear they will be poisoned. Well if they are too stupid to do that, then they are too stupid to ask their politicians to stop the company from poisoning them.

    Yet, somehow people who are too stupid not to know what companies will poison them will somehow be smart enough to elect the politician that will appoint the right regulators who will write the right rules to keep people from being poisoned.

    Of course, if they are smart enough to go through all that, then why not bypass all that and just elect the company that won't poison you. Again, though, if you are so certain that you know companies that will poison their customers, then don't vote for laws to subsidize your competition. Start a nonpoisoning company and you will become a gogillionaire. The implication is clear that you are claiming people don't want to be poisoned. So, all you have to do is provide what they want. You will gain 100% market share and people won't be poisoned. The fact that you don't do this, shows that the knowledge you claim regulators have is knowledge they don't have. After all, what you are claiming is something the laws of physics don't allow.

    If they did, then every regulator and every advocator for a regulator would leave the gov or their job and go start the business they say everyone wants yet no one will provide.

    This just shows you are running into a logic error.
    Feb 24, 2015. 05:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • QuickChat #278, February 5, 2015 [View instapost]
    Indeed, tragic.

    I found this..

    "His death at age 45 from a gunshot remains a polarizing issue; the official finding was suicide, but some believe he was murdered or the victim of an accidental shooting"

    http://bit.ly/1FUVxoK
    Feb 24, 2015. 05:17 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]
    "Or since there will always be companies complaining about a regulation, we should simply abolish all regulation.."

    Oh good grief. This is like saying that since a sledge hammer can't be used for brain surgery on an infant, then sledge hammers have no use.

    You are simply ASSUMMING gov can regulate price. Gov can regulate force, but it CAN'T regulate price. Just because gov can regulate one aspect in the market (force), doesn't mean it can regulate all aspects.

    What you are claiming is that gov has supernatural powers, and you don't think you should be considered an ideologue?
    Feb 24, 2015. 05:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]
    "we simply give the keys to regulating the economy to companies."

    Well, now you have a problem. If a few companies complaining doesn't mean the whole economy is affected, then you can't listen to a few people that complain about lead poisoning.

    Your lack of consistency in your arguments is a result of having your thinking based on cliches and specious reasoning rather than logic and fact. Again, this is a prescription to have your savings wiped out.

    So, if you think all companies want to kill their customers (of course who would they sell to after all the customers were dead) and that customers don't want to be killed, then you've just established that you know how to get 100% market share. For someone on an investing website, you should realize you've just described the ideal investing situation.

    So, instead of passing laws to keep all of your competitors in business, what you should really do is start a nonpoisoning business and capture all that business. Since that is not what you advocating, the reality is that these companies are not trying to kill their customers, and that customers do impose a market discipline on companies not to kill them. Cars could be built like tanks, and then traffic accidents wouldn't hurt anybody. The problem is no one could affort a $12 million car. Every action in life carries some risk. This is not a post scarcity world.
    Feb 24, 2015. 05:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    There is an alternative to gov price blind infrastructure.

    http://bit.ly/ZteOtN

    If states would allow more "for profit" cities, what we currently think of in terms of infrastructure (ie more interstate hwys) would radically change. We might see more trains between cities and more golf carts in cities. Ironically what the "planned community" folks tell us they want. It would happen without gov subsidies, be a lot cheaper, a lot faster, and more appealing.

    Imagine schools having facilities like an Epcot as a classroom. Of course the idea of the classroom might disappear altogether for something much more innovative. Currently schools brag about how few pupils to teachers they have, whereas people on youtube doing instruction videos brag about how many subscribers they have.

    There is a much better world available to us, if we could only open our eyes.
    Feb 24, 2015. 04:52 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    "to shareholders could still be funded either from the 10% retained"

    Maybe, maybe not. The investment might require 11%. The point is we don't know, that's why its best not to monkey with it at all, especially with arbitrary percentages.

    I would be much more comfortable with getting rid of such arbitrary lines in the sand, and just live with the debt and deficit going up, if it led to more productivity.

    I'm not as concerned with the debt and deficit just for the sake of the debt and deficit. I'm more concerned that we issue paper in order to encourage people not to be productive (like a corporate income tax). As long as our productivity goes up faster than the level of notes we issue, then there will be a demand for those notes. That means interest rates (inflation is just an interest rate) stay under control, and we all have much better lives.

    If we sent less on encouraging people not to be productive, and the result was the debt went down, I could live with that too. However the best of both worlds, would be to spend less on such things and collect Fed notes from the populace as well.

    The populace isn't ready to understand this yet, so its a moot point. Its still fun to talk about though.
    Feb 24, 2015. 04:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Chekhov's Gun [View article]
    "This is necessary or all earnings would otherwise be retained by the firm preventing the owners of assets from ever paying any taxes on wealth gain much less paying their "fair share" whatever that is."

    That's not necessarily true. Companies pay dividends now, even though it is taxed twice. People trade stock all the time, and pay cap gain taxes.

    "fair share". The top income earners already pay the bulk of the taxes. That's what's unfair. I don't hate or envy people that earn more than me, thus I have no interest in punishing them for anything.

    However, past all that, if people did do as you say, and didn't pay any taxes, I would suggest that's a perk not a fault.

    I would go further and suggest we get rid of cap gain taxes as well. I would also go further than that, and suggest the tax brackets be flattened, say 5% for everyone, and no deductions. Make it as simple as possible. The real cost isn't just how many Fed notes one surrenders to the US Treasury, but all the hidden compliance costs. If people were freed from all that, their standard of living would go, and we'd be much more likely to find a cure for cancer.
    Feb 24, 2015. 04:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Tale Of Two Debts: Japan Vs. Greece [View article]
    "as there would always be some company complaining."

    If there is no evidence WHATSOEVER, then there shouldn't be anybody complaining.

    "have detrimental effects on the economy at large"

    To think the "economy at large" is not an aggregate of all the businesses is to ignore all sense of reality. However, if you want to say regulations hurt one company but that "hurt" is made up by the increase of another, then you've just demonstrated the TRUE point of gov price regulations. Its protectionism for the special interests that have the economic incentive to push for the regulations that help them and hurt their competitors.

    "With this criterium, any regulation would be detrimental, as there would always be some company complaining."

    Now, you are catching on. Gov can regulate with regards to force, because the populace can grant gov force. Gov can't regulate with regards to price, because the populace can't grant gov special price knowledge.

    As such, anytime gov weighs in with its guns to favor one market participant over another, there will definitely be some complaining, just like when a victim of theft complains about the police, or when a slave complains about the wage cap regulation placed upon them by the gov to favor the master. In those cases, you want to protect the property rights of the victim, and ignore the complaining of the thief. The reason for this, is that providing negative reinforcment for thieves encourages productivity. Productivity leads to consumption. Consumption feels good, and thus the standard of living goes up.

    "And then you call me an ideologue.."

    Of course. You are the only one here clinging to illogial and unreasonable positions.

    First you claim there is no evidence for costs of regulations, then when that evidence is pointed out, you admit the evidence exists, but then rationalize its existence (after first claiming it didn't exist at all).

    Next, you claim that gov employees can do something the laws of physics could in no way provide for them to be able to do, and also claim that the actions of gov employees exist in a special realm of post scarcity (no cost), you will certainly have to be labeled an ideologue. Only people with a dogmatic, fanatical faith would claim that things that cannot exist in nature actually exist, and then dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

    As I said before. Investing is about accepting the world as it is, not some fanciful conjecture of what we wish it were or what somebody told us it is. For anybody unwilling to invest on that basis, they deserve to loose their money.
    Feb 24, 2015. 04:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • QuickChat #278, February 5, 2015 [View instapost]
    "Land along the expected boundaries skyrocketed. "

    That sounds like the first Lex Luthor plan from the first Superman movie (the one with Gene Hackman and Christopher Reeve).

    Did you know the Superman from the 1950s TV show was George Reeves. He committed suicide.
    Feb 24, 2015. 03:36 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
6,274 Comments
6,140 Likes