To the Irresponsible Vin wrote on November 25, 2009 05:41 AM: You need to educate yourself on the preservation of the Gopherus agassizii species. Over 40 years of scientific research has shown that the desert tortoise is fast becoming extinct. With your feeble mind, this may not be limited to other tortoises also. I'll bet you didn't realize that the mortality rate for hatchlings are an astounding 99% because of predation, disease, and human acts. The desert tortoise population has decreased anywhere between 9 and 90% in their habitats. It take would take approximately 200 years for the tortoise population to increase from 10 to 80 individuals.

The problem, again as research has proven, is that many irresponsible idiots release their ill pets into the wild because the honeymoon is over and they don't want a sick animal in their households. Plain stupid, like yourself to not see all the problems there too.

VIN, You are as dumb as you look to sit there and act like there is not a problem with letting a species go to extinction. Have respect for the other cohabitants of our world, even if you can't show any respect for your own community.

The RJ should be ashamed of staffing an ill-minded, self-loathing R-selected individual like yourself. You care about no one but yourself even, let alone about your descendants' world(if we are unfortunate to see any).

Remember this, as a great conservationist once said, "Every time we lose a species we break a life chain which has evolved over 3.5 billion years.”

Tucci78 wrote on October 26, 2009 05:43 AM: We must act. But only with all deliberate speed. At a measured, judicial, considered pace. Methodically. Conscientiously. Gradually. We must "...stand athwart history, yelling Stop, at a time when no one is inclined to do so, or to have much patience with those who do." For the children. Or, at least, for the hatchlings.

reinkefj wrote on October 21, 2009 06:20 AM: You left out the "hope". We have to "hope" for a "change". "Change" out ALL the congress critters. Then ALL of the District of Corruption! How about a little secession?

perlhaqr wrote on October 20, 2009 04:27 PM: Clearly, the best thing we could do for the Giant Panda is to spay every last one that we can find.

What could possibly go wrong?

Titus wrote on October 20, 2009 12:34 PM: "As in patricks case,it's better to remain silent and be thought a fool,then to write and remove all doubt."

On the contrary, it's like having the Washington Generals on the premises. LVRJ should pay Patrick to post.

Bob_Robertson wrote on October 20, 2009 05:52 AM: Sadly, Paolo, principle doesn't matter.

in 1776, Adam Smith identified government interference as the cause of decreasing economic well being in case after case.

75 years later, Bastiat gave us the specific reason why control freaks keep getting away with making things worse, since they focus on "what is seen" while blissfully (and deliberately) ignorant of "what is unseen."

If we argue principles, they will argue specifics (what is seen). If we argue specifics, they will argue generalities (for the greater good).

There is one and only one reason that anyone denies the over-all efficiency of the "free market": Ego.

The control freak is convinced that HE could do it better. And since he knows that HE could, then the only reason that socialism hasn't worked so far is because the "right person" hasn't been in charge.

I refer folks to Mises' "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality" for a full dissertation on the idea:

mises.org/etexts/mises/anticap.asp

Bob_Robertson wrote on October 20, 2009 05:52 AM: Sadly, Paolo, principle doesn't matter.

in 1776, Adam Smith identified government interference as the cause of decreasing economic well being in case after case.

75 years later, Bastiat gave us the specific reason why control freaks keep getting away with making things worse, since they focus on "what is seen" while blissfully (and deliberately) ignorant of "what is unseen."

If we argue principles, they will argue specifics (what is seen). If we argue specifics, they will argue generalities (for the greater good).

There is one and only one reason that anyone denies the over-all efficiency of the "free market": Ego.

The control freak is convinced that HE could do it better. And since he knows that HE could, then the only reason that socialism hasn't worked so far is because the "right person" hasn't been in charge.

I refer folks to Mises' "The Anti-Capitalist Mentality" for a full dissertation on the idea:

http://mises.org/etexts/mises/anticap.asp

Paolo wrote on October 19, 2009 04:53 PM: We can evaluate almost any industry we choose, even if we can't agree on what "percentage" of the industry is free, and what percentage is socialist. We only need to observe that the socialist aspects invariably lead to economic chaos.

Let's take a very controlled industry: oil and gas. Observe that, during the 1970's, price controls were lifted from the economy in general, but were left on oil and gas. The predictable result was economic chaos in the form of gas lines.

Because the price was held artificially low, crucial uses for fuel could not "outbid" non-crucial uses. You may recall stories from the 1970's when people in the Northeast, in the dead of winter, could not get fuel to heat their homes. Yet at the same time, folks in Florida used precious fuel to heat their garages.

Why such economic chaos? Socialist price controls. There is no other logical explanation.

You will note we conclude this entire exercise in logic and reason without having to rely on percentages and statistics. Applying a principle--price controls cause shortages and misallocations--to a particular case can be done without reference to pointless minutiae.

Bob_Robertson wrote on October 19, 2009 03:03 PM: Patrick, it requires only looking at the one segment of the world economy with nearly no government regulation what so ever: The internet and personal computers.

Spectacularly successful, innovative and fast moving compared to any other market segment.

Now compare that to, say, steel. Or cars.

Paolo wrote on October 19, 2009 06:04 AM: To ask what percentage of the market today is free is a pointless exercise in minutiae. Is it 59 percent? No? How about 62? I say, 57!

The correct answer is: nobody cares.

Evaluating particular industries, however, does allow one to see where free markets operate efficiently, and where socialism creates chaos.

I'll start with one vivid example: the bread industry in Poland under the communists. Because having cheap bread was viewed as excellent propaganda, the price of bread was set well below market levels. This produced an incentive for Polish bakers--formerly known for baking truly excellent bread--to cheapen their product as much as possible.

It was soon discovered that the price of a loaf of bread was actually quite a bit below the cost of the raw grain used to make it. Thus farmers, under the chaos of socialist price controls, began feeding bread to their swine, rather than grain, because it was cheaper to do so.

Because bread was priced artificially low, consumer demand for it was artificially high, which meant there was no bread to be found on the shelves.

The people, wanting bread, quickly learned to deal secretly with a baker they knew and trusted, offering him a decent price if he would bake loaves for them in the old, wholesome style. In return, they would offer some favor from whatever business they were in. In other words, a black market inevitably emerged.

Now, do I know the "exact percentage" of free market that existed in Polish bakeries at the time? My answer is it's probably impossible to determine, and pointless to boot. Once you identify the fact that socialist price controls inevitably result in chaos, you don't have to waste your time arguing pointless minutiae.

Read All Comments