Yes, Jeff, I definitely do remember you; I suspect we are largely of the same general political philosophy.
Re socialism - there is substantial confusion in use of the term. But it really technically refers to central planning. One can have government ownership yet operate purely as a for-profit entity that lives or dies according to whether it passes the market test. China’s TVEs (township-village enterprises) under Deng Xiaoping were a good example. They assembled capital from Chinese farmers (earned via household responsibility system where farmers could keep and sell any crop in excess of assigned govt quota). They were local government owned and managed; produced consumer goods, and either did so profitably or collapsed and closed. Profits, if any, were split among the farmer-investors. These were the source of 70% of China’s economic growth when it started. They were govt owned but no central planning and no soft budget constraint/govt bailout for failure. Not socialism.
Conversely, as Nazi Germany developed, private property in manufacturing retained, at least de jure, but Nazi officials increasingly dictated what and how much would be produced, and dictated prices. Mises calls this the German model of central planning, as opposed to Soviet model, where private ownership abolished. In either case central planners are determining kinds and quantities of output and abolishing market test by means of command and subsidization. Both Mises and Janos Kornai are good sources on these issues. On China, Steven Cheung’s “Will China Go Capitalist?”
Re Trump, I evaluate politicians by results rather than by arguments. In practice he’s arguably the most libertarian president of my lifetime.
Re Tyler G.’s presentation - that was a good illustration of something I think is wrong w Hillsdale politics and perhaps the country in general. The Country Club Republicans/GOPe seem focused exclusively on what they think is “normal politics” (protecting their rent streams) and appear oblivious that literal communists are trying to take over.
I read the section on the sheriff interview. As a tech radio guy, it was literally painful.
Beyond all the mis-truths (vhf actually works better then 800mhz, their issue is they haven't taken care of that they have, etc) I thought your idea of sat phones was brilliant.
And the sheriff didn't even pause for a minute to think of it... just dismissed it out of hand, saying that the deputies would have to call "911"
Not so. Sat radios can work in PTT mode with talk groups, just like a standard walkie talkie
Risking the foopah of replying to myself, I really like this. A much more minimal mileage, focused on repairing what they have (VHF) and then going with these radios as needed.
The whole story about intercommunication is just that... that's not "800mhz" that's interconnect technology, that works just fine on VHF or even these satphones
Once this millage fails, you'll see more focus on getting the job done. Stay in touch with them.
I'm not going to change your mind, nor am I trying, but I think Consumers support for Wortz has less to do with Wortz and more to do with not supporting Stockford. Recall, Stockford is a big advocate of goverment owned muni power (socialism), where as the Consumer's PAC looks out for the interest of investor owned power (semi free market).
So it simply wouldn't be in their interest to support a muni power canidate, as they are less regulated and have unfair advantages over the private sector. I don't know why they chose her over Tom Matthews, another candidate running in the 35th you failed to mention.
It's also important to note Wortz immediately distanced herself from them when she discovered they were supporting her, something Fink didn't do in 2020.
If I may comment here, “socialism” ought to refer to central planning of the economy, not government provision of some public services, and particularly natural monopolies. Whether government provision by a small municipal agency or private provision by a large government-regulated firm is better is open to debate, but it isn’t accurate to say this is socialism vs. free market.
“Semi-free market” to me is a contradiction, like “semi-free speech” in which one is free to say only that which is permitted. I think private vs. public ownership is more accurate, and in both cases activities are regulated by government.
No, it isn’t the textbook definition. Government ownership can even be done on a purely for-profit basis, with the entity succeeding or failing entirely on whether it passes the market test and satisfies consumers.
Well, Oxford defines Socialism as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".
BPU is owned by the community as a whole, and off and on it has actually produced power. It seems to align with that definition.
As to the finer points, I'll defer to you as an economist. However, my point was regarding the support of Wortz by the dark money PAC "Citizens for Energizing Michigan’s Economy" was less about supporting Wortz and more about not supporting Stockford, who advocates for Government owned Power. In other words, it's in their vested interest that Stockford not win, not that Wortz win, if that makes any sense.
I'm not sure you remember me, but we interacted a bit in 2007-2008 during the Ron Paul campaign. I also remember you quite well from your defense of Tyler Groenendal's talk on Crony Capitalism and Hillsdale's addiction to grants. Many goverment officials, including then councilman Stockford and the Wolframs were attempting to cast doubt on Tyler's presentation and you jumped in there.
So I have a question for you. You've been an advocate for the Free Market, at least when I knew you ~16 years ago. How does a person that believes in the free market and unfettered capitalism "balance the books", so to speak, with the Neo Keynesian economics Trump practiced in his last term? For me, it has to be more than voting for the lesser evil, and I did vote for Trump in 2016, pragmatically, based on his promise to reduce/eliminate the deficit, yet he submitted progressively larger and larger budget requests.
Yes, Jeff, I definitely do remember you; I suspect we are largely of the same general political philosophy.
Re socialism - there is substantial confusion in use of the term. But it really technically refers to central planning. One can have government ownership yet operate purely as a for-profit entity that lives or dies according to whether it passes the market test. China’s TVEs (township-village enterprises) under Deng Xiaoping were a good example. They assembled capital from Chinese farmers (earned via household responsibility system where farmers could keep and sell any crop in excess of assigned govt quota). They were local government owned and managed; produced consumer goods, and either did so profitably or collapsed and closed. Profits, if any, were split among the farmer-investors. These were the source of 70% of China’s economic growth when it started. They were govt owned but no central planning and no soft budget constraint/govt bailout for failure. Not socialism.
Conversely, as Nazi Germany developed, private property in manufacturing retained, at least de jure, but Nazi officials increasingly dictated what and how much would be produced, and dictated prices. Mises calls this the German model of central planning, as opposed to Soviet model, where private ownership abolished. In either case central planners are determining kinds and quantities of output and abolishing market test by means of command and subsidization. Both Mises and Janos Kornai are good sources on these issues. On China, Steven Cheung’s “Will China Go Capitalist?”
Re Trump, I evaluate politicians by results rather than by arguments. In practice he’s arguably the most libertarian president of my lifetime.
Re Tyler G.’s presentation - that was a good illustration of something I think is wrong w Hillsdale politics and perhaps the country in general. The Country Club Republicans/GOPe seem focused exclusively on what they think is “normal politics” (protecting their rent streams) and appear oblivious that literal communists are trying to take over.
I read the section on the sheriff interview. As a tech radio guy, it was literally painful.
Beyond all the mis-truths (vhf actually works better then 800mhz, their issue is they haven't taken care of that they have, etc) I thought your idea of sat phones was brilliant.
And the sheriff didn't even pause for a minute to think of it... just dismissed it out of hand, saying that the deputies would have to call "911"
Not so. Sat radios can work in PTT mode with talk groups, just like a standard walkie talkie
https://satellitephonestore.com/iridium-ptt#:~:text=Iridium%20Push%2Dto%2DTalk%20(,a%20button%2C%20anywhere%20on%20earth.
Risking the foopah of replying to myself, I really like this. A much more minimal mileage, focused on repairing what they have (VHF) and then going with these radios as needed.
The whole story about intercommunication is just that... that's not "800mhz" that's interconnect technology, that works just fine on VHF or even these satphones
Once this millage fails, you'll see more focus on getting the job done. Stay in touch with them.
I'm not going to change your mind, nor am I trying, but I think Consumers support for Wortz has less to do with Wortz and more to do with not supporting Stockford. Recall, Stockford is a big advocate of goverment owned muni power (socialism), where as the Consumer's PAC looks out for the interest of investor owned power (semi free market).
So it simply wouldn't be in their interest to support a muni power canidate, as they are less regulated and have unfair advantages over the private sector. I don't know why they chose her over Tom Matthews, another candidate running in the 35th you failed to mention.
It's also important to note Wortz immediately distanced herself from them when she discovered they were supporting her, something Fink didn't do in 2020.
If I may comment here, “socialism” ought to refer to central planning of the economy, not government provision of some public services, and particularly natural monopolies. Whether government provision by a small municipal agency or private provision by a large government-regulated firm is better is open to debate, but it isn’t accurate to say this is socialism vs. free market.
“Semi-free market” to me is a contradiction, like “semi-free speech” in which one is free to say only that which is permitted. I think private vs. public ownership is more accurate, and in both cases activities are regulated by government.
You may, however the textbook definition of socialism is government owning the means of production.
True, we are talking a regulated monopoly that has more scrutiny then the government owned power company
No, it isn’t the textbook definition. Government ownership can even be done on a purely for-profit basis, with the entity succeeding or failing entirely on whether it passes the market test and satisfies consumers.
Well, Oxford defines Socialism as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole".
BPU is owned by the community as a whole, and off and on it has actually produced power. It seems to align with that definition.
As to the finer points, I'll defer to you as an economist. However, my point was regarding the support of Wortz by the dark money PAC "Citizens for Energizing Michigan’s Economy" was less about supporting Wortz and more about not supporting Stockford, who advocates for Government owned Power. In other words, it's in their vested interest that Stockford not win, not that Wortz win, if that makes any sense.
I'm not sure you remember me, but we interacted a bit in 2007-2008 during the Ron Paul campaign. I also remember you quite well from your defense of Tyler Groenendal's talk on Crony Capitalism and Hillsdale's addiction to grants. Many goverment officials, including then councilman Stockford and the Wolframs were attempting to cast doubt on Tyler's presentation and you jumped in there.
https://www.facebook.com/tgroenendal/videos/10211406003616714 (Pt1 Q&A starts at 36:00 with then councilman Stockford)
https://www.facebook.com/tgroenendal/videos/10211406313584463 (Pt2 you and the Wolfram's really get into it)
So I have a question for you. You've been an advocate for the Free Market, at least when I knew you ~16 years ago. How does a person that believes in the free market and unfettered capitalism "balance the books", so to speak, with the Neo Keynesian economics Trump practiced in his last term? For me, it has to be more than voting for the lesser evil, and I did vote for Trump in 2016, pragmatically, based on his promise to reduce/eliminate the deficit, yet he submitted progressively larger and larger budget requests.