"Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<64qOa.1299$Ag6.117834@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f697f9f.0307071304.25d69208@posting.google.c om...
> > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:<mY8Oa.4118$ru2.202512@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > > "Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.ca> wrote in message
> > > news:sS7Oa.403047$Vi5.10409139@news1.calgary.shaw. ca...
> > > > From:
> > > > http://users.aol.com/DaveMcCall/terror.htm
> > > >
> > > > They don't call themselves Green because of their concern for the
> > > > environment.
> > >
> > > Certainly they do. The whole idea is sustainable economics which by it's
> > > nature will preserve environmental values.
> >
> > So they are now ardent Austrian/Misean Capitalists now?
>
> What has Von Mises to do with Green politics?
>
> The greens are behind developing sustainable economics and preservation of
> the environment, not preservation of economists.
>
> You would have to explain why you think that sustainable economics is
> inherently a Von Mises pedigree.

Sorry, I didn't turn my sarcasm flag on for all to see. However, since you asked...

The only sustainable economics is that which is not controlled by the government.

Jason

"harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f697f9f.0307080619.15f52bc5@posting.google.c om...
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:<64qOa.1299$Ag6.117834@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4f697f9f.0307071304.25d69208@posting.google.c om...
> > > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:<mY8Oa.4118$ru2.202512@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > > > "Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:sS7Oa.403047$Vi5.10409139@news1.calgary.shaw. ca...
> > > > > From:
> > > > > http://users.aol.com/DaveMcCall/terror.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > They don't call themselves Green because of their concern for the
> > > > > environment.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly they do. The whole idea is sustainable economics which by
it's
> > > > nature will preserve environmental values.
> > >
> > > So they are now ardent Austrian/Misean Capitalists now?
> >
> > What has Von Mises to do with Green politics?
> >
> > The greens are behind developing sustainable economics and preservation
of
> > the environment, not preservation of economists.
> >
> > You would have to explain why you think that sustainable economics is
> > inherently a Von Mises pedigree.
>
> Sorry, I didn't turn my sarcasm flag on for all to see. However, since
you asked...
>
> The only sustainable economics is that which is not controlled by the
government.

If absence of government regulation is the basis of Misean economics then it
is certainly nothing to do with green party politics and is deluded besides.
Natural monopolies guarantee that government ( society ) MUST interfere
with economics to prevent abuses.

>
> Jason

"harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f697f9f.0307080619.15f52bc5@posting.google.c om...
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:<64qOa.1299$Ag6.117834@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4f697f9f.0307071304.25d69208@posting.google.c om...
> > > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:<mY8Oa.4118$ru2.202512@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > > > "Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.ca> wrote in message
> > > > news:sS7Oa.403047$Vi5.10409139@news1.calgary.shaw. ca...
> > > > > From:
> > > > > http://users.aol.com/DaveMcCall/terror.htm
> > > > >
> > > > > They don't call themselves Green because of their concern for the
> > > > > environment.
> > > >
> > > > Certainly they do. The whole idea is sustainable economics which by
it's
> > > > nature will preserve environmental values.
> > >
> > > So they are now ardent Austrian/Misean Capitalists now?
> >
> > What has Von Mises to do with Green politics?
> >
> > The greens are behind developing sustainable economics and preservation
of
> > the environment, not preservation of economists.
> >
> > You would have to explain why you think that sustainable economics is
> > inherently a Von Mises pedigree.
>
> Sorry, I didn't turn my sarcasm flag on for all to see. However, since
you asked...
>
> The only sustainable economics is that which is not controlled by the
government.

If absence of government regulation is the basis of Misean economics then it
is certainly nothing to do with green party politics and is deluded besides.
Natural monopolies guarantee that government ( society ) MUST interfere
with economics to prevent abuses.

>
> Jason

"harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f697f9f.0307082052.6220a796@posting.google.c om...
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:<oJEOa.10083$Tx.441670@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4f697f9f.0307080619.15f52bc5@posting.google.c om...
> > > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:<64qOa.1299$Ag6.117834@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > > > "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:4f697f9f.0307071304.25d69208@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:<mY8Oa.4118$ru2.202512@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > > > > > "Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.ca> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:sS7Oa.403047$Vi5.10409139@news1.calgary.shaw. ca...
> > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > http://users.aol.com/DaveMcCall/terror.htm
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > They don't call themselves Green because of their concern for
the
> > > > > > > environment.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Certainly they do. The whole idea is sustainable economics which
by
> > > > > > it's nature will preserve environmental values.
> > > > >
> > > > > So they are now ardent Austrian/Misean Capitalists now?
> > > >
> > > > What has Von Mises to do with Green politics?
> > > >
> > > > The greens are behind developing sustainable economics and
preservation
> > > > of the environment, not preservation of economists.
> > > >
> > > > You would have to explain why you think that sustainable economics
is
> > > > inherently a Von Mises pedigree.
> > >
> > > Sorry, I didn't turn my sarcasm flag on for all to see. However,
since
> > > you asked...
> > >
> > > The only sustainable economics is that which is not controlled by the
> > > government.
> >
> > If absence of government regulation is the basis of Misean economics
then it
> > is certainly nothing to do with green party politics and is deluded
besides.
>
> Yes, it has nothing to do with Green Party economic ideas, except that
> the free market fulfills their goals better than their collective
> economics.

Actually this is partly true, in particular in the field of commodities with
large markets, large numbers of consumers and manufacturers, and low
barriers to entry. It is not true in terms of rare resources or industries
with large barriers to entry ( monopolies ) or industries with low profit
margins. In fact it is also not true in terms of overall social goals in
terms of the health and weath of all individuals as opposed to the wealth of
an oligarchy or elite. Beyond that, the real fact is that ANY system can be
'better' than another *if it has competent people* in place. The one thing
you can say for capitalism is that in the early stages, before decay and
decadence, it was easier for ambitious and talented men to gain wealth to
match their ability. This dies as opportunities are locked out in favor of
the sons and daughters of the oligarchy and becomes no better at picking
ability than a bureaucracy. The illusions of capitalism is that it is
'better' than socialism but in truth they are both dependent on the
character of the people with power.

>
> > Natural monopolies guarantee that government ( society ) MUST interfere
> > with economics to prevent abuses.
>
> The only thing right about that statement is that you said "Natural
> Monopoly" instead of "Coercive Monopoly." That means you recognize
> that the two are not synonymous.

True. They are not synonymous. Natural monopolies force the government to
act. Coercive monopolies only damage the economy, and the wealth of the
nation, so they are often acted upon, but for the 'public good', not out of
necessity.

>
> Jason

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message news:<duPOa.6950$ru2.639506@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f697f9f.0307082052.6220a796@posting.google.c om...
> > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:<oJEOa.10083$Tx.441670@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > > "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:4f697f9f.0307080619.15f52bc5@posting.google.c om...
> > > > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:<64qOa.1299$Ag6.117834@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > > > > "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:4f697f9f.0307071304.25d69208@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> news:<mY8Oa.4118$ru2.202512@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > > > > > > "Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.ca> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:sS7Oa.403047$Vi5.10409139@news1.calgary.shaw. ca...
> > > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > > http://users.aol.com/DaveMcCall/terror.htm
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > They don't call themselves Green because of their concern for
> > > > > > > > the environment.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Certainly they do. The whole idea is sustainable economics which
> > > > > > > by it's nature will preserve environmental values.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So they are now ardent Austrian/Misean Capitalists now?
> > > > >
> > > > > What has Von Mises to do with Green politics?
> > > > >
> > > > > The greens are behind developing sustainable economics and
> > > > > preservation of the environment, not preservation of economists.
> > > > >
> > > > > You would have to explain why you think that sustainable economics
> > > > > is inherently a Von Mises pedigree.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I didn't turn my sarcasm flag on for all to see. However,
> > > > since you asked...
> > > >
> > > > The only sustainable economics is that which is not controlled by the
> > > > government.
> > >
> > > If absence of government regulation is the basis of Misean economics
> > > then it is certainly nothing to do with green party politics and is
> > > deluded besides.
> >
> > Yes, it has nothing to do with Green Party economic ideas, except that
> > the free market fulfills their goals better than their collective
> > economics.
>
> Actually this is partly true, in particular in the field of commodities with
> large markets, large numbers of consumers and manufacturers, and low
> barriers to entry. It is not true in terms of rare resources or industries
> with large barriers to entry ( monopolies ) or industries with low profit
> margins. In fact it is also not true in terms of overall social goals in
> terms of the health and weath of all individuals as opposed to the wealth of
> an oligarchy or elite. Beyond that, the real fact is that ANY system can be
> 'better' than another *if it has competent people* in place. The one thing
> you can say for capitalism is that in the early stages, before decay and
> decadence, it was easier for ambitious and talented men to gain wealth to
> match their ability. This dies as opportunities are locked out in favor of
> the sons and daughters of the oligarchy and becomes no better at picking
> ability than a bureaucracy. The illusions of capitalism is that it is
> 'better' than socialism but in truth they are both dependent on the
> character of the people with power.

No. The reason capitalism is superior is not because the people are
better, but because the system is self-correcting.

The one reason you can criticise Capitalism is because you think
Monetarism, Keynesianism, and Mercantilism are Capitalsim. They're
not.

> > > Natural monopolies guarantee that government ( society ) MUST interfere
> > > with economics to prevent abuses.
> >
> > The only thing right about that statement is that you said "Natural
> > Monopoly" instead of "Coercive Monopoly." That means you recognize
> > that the two are not synonymous.
>
> True. They are not synonymous. Natural monopolies force the government to
> act. Coercive monopolies only damage the economy, and the wealth of the
> nation, so they are often acted upon, but for the 'public good', not out of
> necessity.

The only thing correct about that statement is the recognition that
Natural Monopolies and Coercive Monopolies are separate concepts.

Jason

"harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f697f9f.0307091802.2d878ee2@posting.google.c om...
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:<duPOa.6950$ru2.639506@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:4f697f9f.0307082052.6220a796@posting.google.c om...
> > > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:<oJEOa.10083$Tx.441670@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > > > "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:4f697f9f.0307080619.15f52bc5@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:<64qOa.1299$Ag6.117834@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > > > > > "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:4f697f9f.0307071304.25d69208@posting.google.c om...
> > > > > > > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@spamcop.net> wrote in message
> > news:<mY8Oa.4118$ru2.202512@news20.bellglobal.com> ...
> > > > > > > > "Dr. Convection" <Convection@convection.ca> wrote in message
> > > > > > > > news:sS7Oa.403047$Vi5.10409139@news1.calgary.shaw. ca...
> > > > > > > > > From:
> > > > > > > > > http://users.aol.com/DaveMcCall/terror.htm
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > They don't call themselves Green because of their concern
for
> > > > > > > > > the environment.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Certainly they do. The whole idea is sustainable economics
which
> > > > > > > > by it's nature will preserve environmental values.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So they are now ardent Austrian/Misean Capitalists now?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What has Von Mises to do with Green politics?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The greens are behind developing sustainable economics and
> > > > > > preservation of the environment, not preservation of economists.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You would have to explain why you think that sustainable
economics
> > > > > > is inherently a Von Mises pedigree.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I didn't turn my sarcasm flag on for all to see. However,
> > > > > since you asked...
> > > > >
> > > > > The only sustainable economics is that which is not controlled by
the
> > > > > government.
> > > >
> > > > If absence of government regulation is the basis of Misean economics
> > > > then it is certainly nothing to do with green party politics and is
> > > > deluded besides.
> > >
> > > Yes, it has nothing to do with Green Party economic ideas, except that
> > > the free market fulfills their goals better than their collective
> > > economics.
> >
> > Actually this is partly true, in particular in the field of commodities
with
> > large markets, large numbers of consumers and manufacturers, and low
> > barriers to entry. It is not true in terms of rare resources or
industries
> > with large barriers to entry ( monopolies ) or industries with low
profit
> > margins. In fact it is also not true in terms of overall social goals in
> > terms of the health and weath of all individuals as opposed to the
wealth of
> > an oligarchy or elite. Beyond that, the real fact is that ANY system can
be
> > 'better' than another *if it has competent people* in place. The one
thing
> > you can say for capitalism is that in the early stages, before decay and
> > decadence, it was easier for ambitious and talented men to gain wealth
to
> > match their ability. This dies as opportunities are locked out in favor
of
> > the sons and daughters of the oligarchy and becomes no better at picking
> > ability than a bureaucracy. The illusions of capitalism is that it is
> > 'better' than socialism but in truth they are both dependent on the
> > character of the people with power.
>
> No. The reason capitalism is superior is not because the people are
> better, but because the system is self-correcting.

The usual repeteting of old stale 'slogans' as a substitute for acutal
thought.

>
> The one reason you can criticise Capitalism is because you think
> Monetarism, Keynesianism, and Mercantilism are Capitalsim. They're
> not.

Gee. How cryptic. Meaning nothing.

>
> > > > Natural monopolies guarantee that government ( society ) MUST
interfere
> > > > with economics to prevent abuses.
> > >
> > > The only thing right about that statement is that you said "Natural
> > > Monopoly" instead of "Coercive Monopoly." That means you recognize
> > > that the two are not synonymous.
> >
> > True. They are not synonymous. Natural monopolies force the government
to
> > act. Coercive monopolies only damage the economy, and the wealth of the
> > nation, so they are often acted upon, but for the 'public good', not out
of
> > necessity.
>
> The only thing correct about that statement is the recognition that
> Natural Monopolies and Coercive Monopolies are separate concepts.
>
> Jason

"harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4f697f9f.0307091802.2d878ee2@posting.google.c om...

[snip]

> No. The reason capitalism is superior is not because the people are
> better, but because the system is self-correcting.

Any system self-corrects on a long enough timeline.

Capitalism is "superior" (assuming you mean preferred) because your average
Joe wants a chance in hell at becoming rich.

Stiner
--
.. . .That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
Safety and Happiness.

-- The Declaration of Independence

"Nathan A. Stine" wrote:
>
> "harvest dancer" <harvestdancer@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:4f697f9f.0307091802.2d878ee2@posting.google.c om...
>
> [snip]
>
> > No. The reason capitalism is superior is not because the people are
> > better, but because the system is self-correcting.
>
> Any system self-corrects on a long enough timeline.
>
I hope you're not a systems engineer.

> Capitalism is "superior" (assuming you mean preferred) because your average
> Joe wants a chance in hell at becoming rich.
>
> Stiner
> --
> . . .That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends,
> it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
> new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
> powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their
> Safety and Happiness.
>
> -- The Declaration of Independence