I write about Economics & Politics and sometimes I post pictures of things I like. Find me elsewhere on the intrenet:
twitter.com/Suga_Shane
LarryBrownSports.com
NBAOffseason.com
NFLoffseason.com
MLBOffseason.com
gunsgeargallantry.tumblr.com/
In honor of Skylab’s anniversary, here is a documentary worth every second of your time. Educate yourself on the space race and private industry as it concerns us today.
Orphans of Apollo is (description provided by mirforpeace) …the extraordinary true story of a rebel group of entrepreneurs who seized command of the Russian Mir Space Station. It was the pioneering efforts of these brave, free marketeer buinessmen who launched the New Space Revolution, and kick-started the privatization of outer space as we know it today. This is the greatest story never told, and one film you are not supposed to see…
“Orphans of Apollo” is the award winning documentary that has been called the “greatest space story never told.” The film tells the extraordinary true story of a small group of entrepreneurs who felt, ‘orphaned’ by President Nixon’s decision to end the NASA Apollo Moon program and the subsequent years of nominal space activity. This band of brothers took matters into their own hands, and commandeered the Russian Mir Space Station, behind the backs of NASA and the US government. The rebellious, yet pioneering efforts has been credited with launching the new commercial Space Revolution. This is the remarkable untold story of the greatest secret in the new space race.
This dramatic tale chronicles the adventure of the boldest business plan the Earth has ever seen. ‘MirCorp’, the entrepreneurial company ’s vision to transform the Russian space station into an outpost for what was intended to be the first phase of a trillion dollar business. The project was to include mining of asteroids, gravity free laboratories, a space ‘hotel’, and a research facility. MirCorp was the ultimate start-up company, and unlike anything the universe had ever seen.
Join this band of rebels out to change the course of history in space, as they board a private jet, fly to Russia, negotiate one of the most remarkable business deals of the final frontier. Follow this diverse group as they pioneer their way through this new business of space. Listen to the management team as they struggle with issues of branding, finance, technology, and engage in the ultimate slugfest with the most powerful governments and bureaucrats.
Orphans of Apollo is an intimate and compelling epic which eloquently communicates the real origins of the private commercial new space revolution. Now for the first, and possibly the last, time, “Orphans of Apollo” combines archival material from original NASA film footage, Russian archival footage, personal footage, IMAX footage, with interviews and or footage with key players including Tom Clancy, Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Rick Tumlinson, Walt Anderson, Gus Gardellini, Jeff Manber, and others. Available via Google, Amazon, Amazon Instant Video
I’ve only seen the trailer but judging by that, the history that I already know and the movie poster, this is probably the most Anarcho-Capitalistic space documentary of all time.
If we each have a boxed lunch with the same sandwich, chips, a pickle, and a cookie, why would we consider trading items? Perhaps I prefer chips and you prefer cookies. Maybe I’ll give you my cookie for your chips. Now both of us are happier with our lunches. This is one example of how exchange can make people better off even without increasing the total amount of wealth. Exchange helps correct mistakes in allocation and it makes everyone involved happier. Professor Michael C. Munger offers a few examples of how exchange can make people happier whether people have the same preferences or different preferences, the same stuff to start with or different stuff. The ability to make people better off by simple exchange may seem like magic, Munger says, but it’s just markets.
Markets are this amazing organic machine that sorts out what best fits where, how much do of what we need, how much each thing should cost and any other unknown we may have on an individual level.
This is because a market doesn’t need leadership or guidance or any form of planning or even creation or assembly of the market. It only requires participation. So long as there are enough parties that are willing to participate in exchange, the market will filter through all the information and coordinate the rest of the details. It sounds like magic, but it’s not. It’s logic.
This phenomenon is one of my favorite things to introduce to people who are knew to economics or free market theory. It totally blows their mind at first, almost to the point that they don’t believe it or even deny it.
Markets!
You Can Always Leave
Does taxation really depend on threats of violence? Isn’t taxation part of the social contract?
You Can Always Leave is the third film in the George Ought to Help series.
See Also
I always enjoy the George Ought to Help videos.
97% Owned - Economic Truth documentary
Want to understand how central banking works? How money is created? How banks manipulate the money supply and inflation? How you’re being lied to? It’s 2 hours long but it’s well worth the watch.
EDIT: Just wanted to clarify, there’s a lot of “nationalization” and “regulation” talk in this video that I don’t agree with. In fact, I’m not sure I agree with any of the ideas on how to fix the system presented in this video. I am, however, intrigued by the idea one gentlemen in the video had about basing or backing a new currency by energy or energy production, like KWh or something. I think that’s kind of the idea behind bitcoin, not exactly, but close enough. I’d love to read more or explore more on this topic.
To the people who want to actively destroy government, I ask “Why turn to violence? Don’t even bother.” In the long run, every single government will inevitably destroy itself.
Free Market Solutions to GMO Labeling
People wonder what happens if we don’t have mandatory labeling of GMOs.
Freedom of choice is a two way street. As a consumer, you should have the ability to choose what you consume, but producers should also have the ability to choose what they produce and how they package it and introduce it to the market.
How would that work?
Those who choose to label their products do so and then the public decides if it cares enough to buy labeled products or it prefers the cheaper goods even if they know they are modified or they simply don’t care either way.
This is why you can’t force people’s hand. What if some people prefer GMO food? What if some people prefer the cheaper prices? What if you’re artificially increasing those prices by requiring labeling?
Why don’t we just take a step back and let the market decide exactly where it wants to go?
In the end, if the public prefers Non-GMO and also prefers it to be labeled, those producers who provide products that fit those preferences will win out and those that don’t change their products will be left with a smaller share of the market (or no share at all).
In the real world, it’s not mandatory to label GMOs, yet some stores, Whole Foods and Sprouts, do so. As do some manufacturers. What is more prominent in the market is not the labeling of GMOs but the labeling of Non-GMOs.
This is actually a better approach, since it doesn’t force anyone to label anything, but those that don’t use GMOs and want to notify the public can get on board and those that don’t want to notify the public don’t have to and can risk the public no longer purchasing their product.
Walk into a Whole Foods right now and you’ll find all kinds of products, from Non-GMOs to Organic to Naturals to regular foods. And everyone can shop their and everyone can buy the type of product that fits all of their preferences; both dietary and financial.
When we talk about choice, I think a lot of people only focus on a single side of the coin. They assume that choice in a marketplace only refers to the consumers choice. That’s only half of the picture. A truly free market has choices for both consumers and producers.
If producers want, they can supply goods that are contrary to the preferences of the consumers. They might be breaking through to a brand new market and revolutionize the industry or they might be headed for a cliff. Why not let them do what they want and let consumers buy what they want and the future of the industry will be determined by what new preferences consumers form by testing what’s available for them?
It is philosophically inconsistent to advocate for less government intervention yet want government to force the hand of producers. It’s also inconsistent to advocate for the freedom of choice for you and people in your group while also asking to limit the choices of a different group of people.
If you really want GMOs labeled or even gone for good, start by only buying Non-GMOs. If enough people agree and also buy Non-GMOs, the rest of the equation will solve itself.
Liberty & Freedom: The Essential Collection
(via nerdylibertarian)
The minimum wage in 1955 was $1.00/hr.
That would be four quarters, back when quarters were made with silver. The melt value of those four quarters (in today’s money) is about $20.
gee I wish this had a source..you can literally google every aspect of this post.
1995 minimum wage, silver content in US quarters pre-1964, spot price of silver
These are not hard pieces of information to find. Not everything needs to be injected directly into your thick skull from somebody else in order for you to know about it.
I mean honestly. Are you that fucking dumb?
I hate lazy people who want a source for everything as if Google doesn’t exist on your computer, phone, playstation and tv.
All of the info in the world, right there at your fingertips and you are too lazy to search or to comfortable with your skepticism that you refuse to do so.
Someone yesterday asked me “If IP law hurts individuals, why isn’t there anything written about it?” I wanted to cut my neck with a pencil, pull my brains out with a toothpick and jam them down my throat so I could suffocate to death.
Minimum Wage in 1955 to 1956: $1/hour (via Dept of Labor)
Price of an ounce of Silver in 1955: $0.95/ounce (via The Silver Institute)
What $1 in 1955 is worth in 2013 dollars: $8.23 (via Bureau of Labor Statistics)
Price of an ounce of Silver in 2013 (3/28/13): $28.82 (via MonEx)
The US dollar literally lost $20.59 or 71.4% of it’s value since 1955 due to inflation.
Next time don’t be so damn lazy.
You’re welcome,
Sha
Bitcoin Investment and Profitability.
Bitcoin has been building up quite a head of steam lately and I’ve decided to pay attention. I’ve been doing a lot of reading and the idea seems sound, to a degree. I haven’t looked too much into the programming and I probably won’t since I don’t speak that specific dialect of nerd. But one thing I have looked into is the profitability or value of converting or at least investing in some Bitcoins.
Last night I was doing some crude math with bitcoin values just trying to see where bitcoin is and where it can end up. . It’s probably safer to assume that bitcoin, if successful, will only be one of a number of major currencies in use (I can best imagine a scenario or 3 or 4 different currencies at play). It’s also highly likely that bitcoin will fail. There are some programming or coding weaknesses, especially in privacy/anonymity, and other issues regarding government intervention and regulation, outlawing and so on. For simplicity’s sake, I’ve assumed that bitcoin will eventually replace the entire US currency system but not the entire world’s system. I’m sure if I my intrigue of bitcoin grows a little more, I’ll probably build a few models, factoring in growth, size and risk factors but for now just plain crude math.
Here’s some simple numbers:
- There will only ever be 21 million bitcoins created
- Each bitcoin is currently valued at around $75 a coin (3/25/2013)
- In 2009 there was about $8 trillion US dollars in existence.
- Since 2009, the Fed has significantly increased the world’s US Dollar supply, but I don’t know the exact number. Let’s leave this figure at $8 trillion for now.
I won’t try to calculate bitcoin’s value based on the world’s total money value because that would first of all be beyond optimistic, even more so than this post is already and secondly bitcoin is supposed to bring about a new revolution in money where people have competing, free market currencies, so it would be pointless to assume bitcoin will hold a monopoly on the world’s currency. It was never supposed to do such a thing.
So, what happens if bitcoin replaces the US dollar completely? Well, it would have to carry the weight of the value of those dollars, or come close to doing so. But for the sake of simplicity, let’s just say that it would have to replace the dollar completely.
This means that 21 million coins would have to hold a value of 8 trillion dollars.
That’s an absurd amount. How absurd?
Well, each bitcoin is currently worth about $75. There are 10 million or so coins currently in circulation. Let’s assume that the total value of bitcoins stays static until 21 million coins are released. Each coin would be worth about $36.
That’s about 0.01% of what a bitcoin would have to be worth for it to replace the US Dollar. If you’re not good at math, that means that each of the 21 million bitcoins would have to be valued at $358,000 each. That’s an increase of over 4,700%.
Just to bring some gravity to the situation, this is all calculated on extremely gracious assumptions. There are still very real risks in investing in bitcoin.
The price needs to stabilize for the currency to become something more than just an investment. If the price keeps climbing people will only invest and hoard bitcoin. Very few will be willing to pay with or trade bitcoins out of fear that they might lose out on the next price jump. Some of this is due to the fact that some “investors” still look at the dollar as their main currency and see bitcoins as investments. Others because bitcoin isn’t accepted as a payment method in the overall marketplace. Unless people start to openly accept bitcoin, there’s no real way to obtain or capitalize on the value of bitcoins short of “cashing out”.
Here’s where competing with governments hurts bitcoin. Governments can still step in and make it illegal to buy, sell or hold bitcoins. This would mean that unless you can use bitcoins to buy things, there’s no way to extract the value and the investment is now useless.
There are other real fears with bitcoin; The whole thing could be a big scheme by early adopters to pump and dump. The code can theoretically be hacked or manipulated at some point. Electronic records are much more potent that standard paper keeping. In the electric world no one is really anonymous, some just do a better job of hiding their tracks.
It’s safe to say that it’s probably worth investing $100, $500 and maybe even a $1,000 in bitcoins, if you can afford it just for the fun of it. It will make for a good story, if nothing else.
I’m personally still holding out but watching with a curious eye and a fist full of money to invest.
Like him or not, Rand Paul is now at the top of the 2016 ticket. Unless you’re a buffoon that would actually elect Joe Biden.
Let’s hope Rand Paul doesn’t turn into another Obama.
Or a George W. Bush.
W ran on free market economics and being against gov’t…
stop voting jesus christ its like you people get SO close to going full anti-state sometimes but then get pulled back in by your naive dreams and emotional triggers.
I’m full on anarchist but I think that you have to be reasonable about the process of creating a full stateless society. You can’t just hide from the state with your head in the sand.
You must vote to eliminate the state while you fight the state and educate the people.
You have to always cast a dissenting vote. Vote against all taxes, vote against all laws, vote against all growth of government. You don’t have to vote for actual representatives and I can understand why this is counter productive (lesser of two evils, blah blah blah), but voting against local measures and taxes is a must for any advocate of statelessness.
After all, the majority of people aren’t going to wake up tomorrow and suddenly be anarchists. I still live here and I still have to pay taxes and be subjected to the immorality of the law and the force by which it is enforced. While this remains true, I believe it is self defense to constantly vote against it.
I have only voted twice for a ‘representative’. Once for Ron Paul in 2008 for the primaries and once in 2012 when I wrote Ron Paul’s name in backwards. I think electing any national representative is a joke and should be treated as such.
But when it comes to local measures, where your vote isn’t just for the so called “lesser of two evils” and it can actually vote out a criminal activity such as taxation or unjust legislation, you not only should vote, you must vote. It’s self defense.
‘being reasonable’ with the State has never gotten anyone anywhere. ‘be reasonable’ is how police officers justify heinous behavior. dont stand up and bare your teeth, dont brandish your arms and be uncompromising. just ‘be reasonable.’ ‘just cooperate and there wont be any trouble.’ you may as well lay down and die, because theres no freedom in being reasonable with those who do not respect reason in the first place. limiting yourself for some kind of misplaced desire for practical ends at the cost of your own morals wont get you anywhere.
create alternatives and equip yourself for the backlash as best you can. lead by example and try your best to inspire. freedom will never, ever, EVER be won in the court rooms, congress or senate floors. once youve entered there youve already given up leagues of fundamental depth to your views.
I never said you must be “reasonable with the state”. I said you have to be reasonable about the process of eliminating the state. That distinction is important for you to understand.
You have to understand that ignoring who is in power and what they can do simply because you think anarchism is equatable to not voting is exactly how tyrants secure and execute their power.
To create and maintain a stateless society, that society must also continually stay vigilant and aware of individuals who are attempting to or capable of hoarding power for coercive and corrupt means. These people are the weak link in a stateless society. They seek to mitigate the power of individuals and funnel it into their own pockets, to weaponize and monetize that power.
Least we get into the fact that voting isn’t strictly a function of government and that in a stateless society there would still be benefits to voting, even in a stateless society. We vote all the time in our day to day lives without involving government in any form. Like when three friends vote on where to eat or when you and a spouse choose between what movie to see and where to see it and even down to where we sit.
The difference between stateless voting and state-empowered voting is that there is no state to force you to obey the results of the vote. In a stateless society, if you don’t agree with the outcome of a vote, you can simply opt out, you can walk away.
So voting itself is not evil. Forcing people to obey the results despite their wishes is evil.
Without getting into if I think you’re right or wrong, let’s further explore what you’re advocating when you say we shouldn’t vote at all.
You are saying that the only way to get rid of the state is to 1. Ignore it completely 2. revolt (violently, if necessary) or 3. vote it away. And you don’t believe in #3 so that leaves you with the first two options.
Option #1: You can ignore the state and dip your head in the sand and hope it doesn’t come after you and hope that it leaves you alone but we’ve tried this for a long time and what are the results? And before you go on stating that the majority of the people haven’t, let me ask you what percentage of people actually vote in this country? The majority of people typically don’t vote and don’t get involved with government. Most of these people don’t like and don’t trust gov’t and would not mind it shrinking or disappearing or leaving them alone for good. And what do we have to show for it? Less gov’t? Less corruption? Less force? None of the above. We have trended in the opposite direction since the day after we won the American Revolution. So you can toss Option #1 out the window.
Let’s look at option #2. If you revolt, you either do so by peacefully asking gov’t to leave or by violently forcing them to leave. So let’s split this Option into two part; #2A Peaceful revolt and #2B Violent Revolt.
We can eliminate violent revolt because it probably violates the NAP and it most certainly fringes on coercive. If the idea of anarchy is truly that good and the people want it, it should be possible without a single drop of blood being shed. Unlike the state, I tend to believe that anarchists are generally peaceful people and the idea of anarchy, if taught properly is more than just an embraceable concept, it is a coveted one.
So that leaves us with option #2B. Unfortunately for you and others who don’t believe in voting, option #2B is most easily achieved by vote. I know I eliminated #3 because you’re against voting, but voting with a dissenting voice actually does have it’s some merit.
This is essentially what went down in Iceland. People were sick of their government. They educated themselves and set out to show their dissent in massive but pretty calm protests. When the gov’t didn’t listen, they voted them out of office. All of them. And what did the representatives do? They left. No one was killed. No coup d’etat was needed, no violent revolution. Just the power of one’s voice backed by the very real power of the masses.
Now Iceland chose to keep a functioning government, though they changed how they functioned. But they could have easily not elected a government once they had rid themselves of their previous installment. Now as a true anarchist/voluntaryist, I respect the people’s ability and decision to install a government of their liking if they chose to do so. I, personally, would have not.
Voting is can be a very effective tool for destroying the state, why would we not capitalize on this?
I think that there are a few peaceful ways to end the state:
1. Educate yourself and others. There’s nothing that can doom a good idea faster than a terrible defense of that idea.
2. Vote for a smaller government, or none at all, whenever you can. We’ve been given a magic tool to voice our opinion and fight the growth of government, why not use it to our advantage?
3. Don’t give up an inch. Never compromise when it comes to liberties and freedoms. They are yours and yours alone. Never trade them for security. Never suspend them for any reason.
And if it makes you feel any better, I still wouldn’t vote for Rand Paul.
- Sha
