All Your Tubes Are Belong to Googlizon

(Austrian) Economics, Business, Corporatism, Democracy, Nanny Statism, Technology, Vulgar Politics
Share

Googlizon with Chrome eye beam What you say!!!1

There has been a lot wailing and gnashing of teeth recently over a joint announcement by Google and Verizon of a legislative-framework proposal they’ve been working on.

Now, I’ve seen this variously referred to as a backroom deal or pact, a secret treaty, or a set of regulations Google and Verizon are imposing on the internet. The FCC is shamefully abdicating its responsibility to regulate the internet! Nevermind that the D.C. Circuit court determined recently in the Comcast case that the FCC has no such regulatory authority over broadband internet; hence, the calls to disastrously reclassify broadband internet access in order to place it under the same regulatory rules as regular telephone service. Some are even intimating that Google and Verizon are trying to “own” the internet. Net neutrality activists are up in arms about this proposal, viciously attacking Google for selling out and reversing its longstanding defense of net neutrality, and calling for people to stage a silly boycott of Google products and services. If you don’t join the herd, you get labeled a Google-Verizon apologist or it is insinuated that you are on their payroll (see comments on the CNET articles linked below, for example).

So what should libertarians make of all this?


  1. Confused by this sentence and the title? The title is a mash-up of a few geeky internet memes. Know your meme, and also check out this Wikipedia article and this YouTube video

All Your Tubes Are Belong to Googlizon Read Post »

A Government Program Which Works?

Business, Finance, Nanny Statism
Share
Apparently 13.2% of you have some of these in your wallet.

Is it possible? Has free-market anarchist and Austrian School Economist Michael Barnett finally discovered a government program which appears to be achieving its stated goals? Yes, my friends, I think I actually may have done just that. Now look, I understand that correlation does not imply causation, but I think there’s a strong case to be made here. I’m talking, of course, about the multitude of state and federal outreach efforts over the last two years to spread awareness of and encourage participation in Food Stamps Programs. Record numbers of Americans are receiving food stamp assistance now, more than ever before. Illinois, Oregon, Florida, and Idaho are just four of many US states which have never had so many people dependent on government to feed them. I wanted to make a play on the words “superpower” and “soup lines” (souperlines? souperpower?) to describe America’s new position in the world, but my joke writers aren’t as good as Jay Leno’s.

The world's only souperpower? See, it just doesn't work.

Specifically, according to the US Department of Agriculture 40.8 million Americans are recipients of “supplemental nutrition assistance.” Subsidies for food purchases jumped 19 percent from a year earlier and increased 0.9 percent from April. Participation has set records for 18 straight months. Well, there’s an economy in recovery! I think a little perspective is in order.

Suppose we created a new country out of every recipient of government food assistance programs in the US and named it The Stiglitzian Commonwealth of Krugmania. This new Commonwealth would be tied with Kenya as the 32nd most populous country. It would have more citizens than (in no order) Argentina, Sudan, Poland, Iraq, Venezuela, and Malaysia, just to name a few. It would have twice or more as many citizens as Chile, Niger, Netherlands, Cameroon, Angola, Cambodia, and Kazakhstan just to name a handful of the more than 160 countries which would fall into this category. But what about America’s Neighbor-to-the North? The United States has 6.5 million more people relying on food stamps than Canada has people period. My first instinct is to call that hilarious, but as that comparison sinks in, it’s rather revolting. This must be the economic recovery I kept hearing about.

Don’t despair, people. Let’s not forget the silver lining I launched this post with: we may just have discovered a government program which achieves its stated goals. That’s something, I guess.

A Government Program Which Works? Read Post »

Greedy Businessman Does More For Environment Than Environmentalists

(Austrian) Economics, Business, Environment, Technology
Share

Over at Forbes.com, Reihan Salam had something rather unexpected but very welcome to say about the CEO of a major corporation:

That the success of the Kindle is good news for Amazon should go without saying. But it represents a remarkable environmental advance as well. The publishing industry in the U.S. felled roughly 125 million trees and generated vast amounts of wastewater. And, of course, physical books have to be transported by trucks, which generate carbon emissions, exacerbate congestion, increase traffic fatalities and cause wear-and-tear on already overburdened roads. One assumes that Bezos didn’t have the environment foremost in mind when he pushed the Kindle concept forward, yet he’s arguably done more to fight climate change by threatening hardcovers and paperbacks with extinction than any number of environmental activists.

Salam goes on to argue that Amazon will ‘win the internet’ through the Kindle and its rapidly growing ebook sales. I don’t know about that. What does it mean to ‘win the internet’? He only considers Facebook as a rival. What about Google? Android and ChromeOS are poised to dominate the mobile phone and tablet pc markets, putting Google into direct competition with the Kindle. Then there’s Google Search, Books, Voice, Gmail, Docs, Maps, Chrome browser, TV, and so on and so forth.

But bravo to Salam for daring to recognize in public the (probably unintended) positive environmental externalities of business decisions and technological innovation driven by profit-seeking amidst market competition — indeed, for daring to rank them on par with or above that of ‘altruistic’ environmental activists.

Cross-posted at Is-Ought GAP.

Greedy Businessman Does More For Environment Than Environmentalists Read Post »

Manuel F. Ayau (1925-2010), R.I.P.

(Austrian) Economics, Education
Share
Manuel F. Ayau
Manuel F. Ayau (1925-2010)

Today we mourn the passing away of Latin America’s titan of liberty, Manuel “El Muso” Ayau. His life was truly inspiring from being entrepreneurially successful, to having two doctoral degrees (Literature and Law) to founding a school (Universidad Francisco Marroquín in Guatemala City) based on the idea of taking the world back for classic liberal ideas in a continent ridden with defeatist, authoritarian socialist ideas.

To those of us lucky enough to meet him, it was surprising how warm and elegant he always was in any conversation, specially in heated debates. This he probably took from his beloved F.A. Hayek. But he was also frontal, direct and precise in logic. This, in contrast, I guess comes from his deep admiration for Ludwig von Mises.

Alas, it were Mises and Hayek the two thinkers that he wanted his young students at UFM to know about. At this truly unique university, students had to get themselves acquainted with Misesian Economics (i.e. sound, coherent economic theory and history) and Hayekian Social Thought (i.e. spontaneous and evolving social orders that escaped any pretense of social planning). I myself studied my master’s program at Muso’s UFM thanks not only to UFM existing in the first place and being considered a Mecca for Austrian Economics in our region, but also thanks to his direct support and endorsement. He was always able to gather the best Austrian minds in the region (at some point this was undoutedly the Argentinian profesors) and some of us have been granted the resulting opportunities still unmatched in several other regions of the world.

Photocopy we shared of the book the autographed for us

Muso was kind enough to send a video message for the members to the Movimiento Libertario in Ecuador andcopies of his books (brilliant, easy to understand books I have to say) whenever one of us was invited to the Austrian Mecca for a Liberty Fund event hosted by UFM.

This is a very sad day in which Latin American libertarians ought to make pause and reflect upon this great man’s legacy of courage, vision and clarity. It is now our task to multiply his deeds to a point that would make him eternally joyful wherever he now is.

Manuel F. Ayau (1925-2010), R.I.P. Read Post »

“I think, therefore I own” – Objectivists as NeoMarxists of sorts

(Austrian) Economics, Corporatism, IP Law, Libertarian Theory, The Right
Share

The usual apology for IP (“intellectual property”) privilege is that effort has to be rewarded in an advanced society if justice is to be made to creators and producers.

Interesting: Marxists say the very same thing. They claim that previous effort (“frozen labor”) is that which gives value to economic goods. Well, Objectivists are doing the same in a more fashionable — yet equally flawed — way. They claim economic value is derived from frozen…thoughts. Yes, frozen thoughts. See, Objectivists consider labor performed inside our heads1 the source of economic value, and thus being the very core of value creation it has to be rightfully protected at all costs, right?

Wrong. The source of value is the customer’s valuation of said good during the time of sale.

Yes, ladies and gentlement, it is sales (that mundane and sordid act) that which generates an income in a free society (i.e. the division of labor). Sales are the only way in which demonstrated preference tells us that which is valuable to others. And if it is, they surrender certain amount of another good by giving it to us in exchange for what they need and want. That good is generally one of general acceptance (the most marketeable one), in other words, money. So in order to make money one has to sell. It does not suffice to sit, philosopher style (see pic), and wait for money to come to oneself. One has to know how to turn the idea into an attractive and/or useful product, which requires a whole different set of skills. Or find able partners for the risk-taking endeavor. Even choosing an adequate partner/team for production, distribution, and sales require entrepreneurial skills far beyond the usual thinker’s.

But in any case, it is not “who thought of this first?” that makes people buy more of brand X. The customer couldn’t care less either way. It is the positioning of brand X in the customer’s mind that creates what we call a true market niche for a product. Thus, it follows that it is opportunity, quality and ultimately demonstrated preference (sales) that determines commercial success. Alas, Capitalism is not the social system of thinkers (nor was Socialism, as it was predictably taken over by power-mongers): it is the social system of merchants. Yes, lowly, mundane, and anti-intellectual merchants.

This, to the despair of (Objectivist) NeoMarxism and Marxism, two philosophies founded  by intellectuals who wanted to highlight the role of people like themselves.


  1. A substantially less sweaty form of labor, of course 

“I think, therefore I own” – Objectivists as NeoMarxists of sorts Read Post »

Scroll to Top