Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Rupe was it Martin Bronfenbrenner ?
I have heard about this guy many years ago but have never learnt much about it. Looking now but stuggling with the correct combination of search terms

Nope... Edward Deming....

http://deming.org/index.cfm?content=511

His work under-pinned the economic model that propelled Japan into a major export player... well until recently anyway...

His mantra of "designing quality in"... rather than rectifying problems later.... was adopted as a fundamental principle in Japanese automotive and technological businesses...

Ahh yes that's the story I heard.
A previous work place implemented Lean and Kanban methods which were really successful in terms of quality and efficiency. Not sure if they are based directlyon demming but are associated with him to some. Extent at the least.
Very interesting

Sent from my U8510 using Tapatalk 2

I guess it's time to move on to the next topic.
I think a previous comment on drug laws needs to be addressed.
Libertarians believe that the only crimes are those that have victims. The non-aggression principle. More specifically the only crimes are those where an individual or group of individuals aggress against the private property of another, this includes breach of contract (where a contract is a transfer of title). One's own person is included in their private property as libertarians see the individual as owning "himself".

Therefore activities that cause harm to oneself are not crimes, such as
smoking (anything)
drinking
taking hard drugs
suicide
eating lots of cake
cutting ones nails too short
not exercising
etc..

To state the obvious some of the above are illegal, some are bad for your health and some alter your behaviour.

I had forgotten his name too, but he was hired by MacArthur.

Right, ok....

Your last topic was pulled apart by pretty much every one, it was twisted from an attack on environmentalists into a rant about libertarian ideals, how about you either counter the responses here, or start a new thread that's rightly named if you want to head off on another rant..

But, it would be good if you could actually counter the responses rather than just start on another new rant.

I was under the impression that I had sufficiently countered the responses. China was covered, sweatshops were covered, I could go over Chile again and provide some examples of countries where the people are wealthy because of economic freedom. What else?

Sent from my U8510 using Tapatalk 2

Yep, you could say that many Chinese people have become wealthy due to economic reforms... no dispute there...

But your central libertarian premise was/is... that those reforms can't be acheived by a politically restrictive government... certainly not a pervasive "centrally planned" government... of which the Chinese would rank near the top of the tree....

Even Gadaffi in Libya.... for all his faults and "dictatorship... presided over vast infrastructure developments and economic growth....

Libya has oil though. Oil helps.

SV's premise is that less and less regulation makes economies better and better.

But all the current finacial crisis.. would seem to suggest otherwise...

And I know SV will argue that it isn't because of de-regulation... but it is... the finacial sector has been given open slather... resulting in collapse.. and inflationary prssures.. as he quite rightly outlines....

And yes governments have compounded the problem....

But Liberatarinism... will never defeat the innate greed of people... and/or businesses... and removal of all regulation... would just make things worse... not better..

No, I guess I didn't explain my point properly.
Of course those reforms can be achieved by a politically restrictive government, after all it was the government that relaxed its entire ideology to become "more capitalist" and less communist, and it was these changes that made China what it is today economically.
"more capitalist" certainly doesn't mean capitalist by any stretch of the imagination either.

If China were to actually become truly capitalist (which would result in far more wealth for more of the individuals, and even greater growth of the middle class, then by definition the current government would to completely change (or jump into the sea, they would never allow that)

The debate was over whether or not the reforms (of privatisation, a market economy etc as above - regardless of how it got there) were what caused China's growth and I believe we have reached consensus on that.


Agreed.

This is also similar to the Chile example. Pinnochet was a dictator, his reforms were also towards a somewhat more free market and lower govt regulations. However he was still a dictator and the political climate could in no way be described as capitalist or free. In no way, under any definition can Pinochet's policies be described as "libertarian", they weren't even close to the semi-capitalism we have in western countries.
However the reforms he did implement resulted in a halt of Allende's insane inflation and a much higher average GDP growth during and even more so after his reign.

Yes I will, the government will ALWAYS blame someone else for their failure. It will always be the financial markets, or the consumers or business or some natural disaster, never their own thievery and debauchery of the money.


The ultimate understatement.
I am going to explain in as brief as possible (but hopefully with enough detail as to understand) the cause and cure of depressions.
This is not a simple undertaking, there will be a lot of information that most are unaware of.
My information comes from informal study over some time, however for this excercise I will be following an article by Murray N Rothbard written in 1969. As you will see nothing has changed.
Rupe kinda got it backwards. The sole cause is the govts manipulation of the money, what made it worse is the financial sector. I however do not seperate the financial sector from the govt. The large banks and the govt are one and the same. The both require each other, the corrupt marriage between the two is absolute.


It is not meant to.
Capitalism and the market works perfectly with greed. To fulfill a business owners greed for money he MUST serve his customers better than anyone else, to increase market share, by providing new goods and services that the people desire. If he fails in this, he goes broke.
Competition of the market is what creates superior products and services for us all, in the "evil" business owners quest for money.

Hmmm, this is a big job. Do you want the short answer or the longer, beautifully explained answer ?(But still much shorter than the full article)
The link to the article is here http://mises.org/daily/3127/

But I'm assuming many wont read a "long" article and want the short version.
I'm enjoying the dissection however, it just might be another day or so...

Either way, Ill be posting something because it is absolutely fundamental to all things economics and politics related.

You simply cannot have a full understanding of the role of todays government, and of money itself without the basic principles of Austrian Economics. You might think "why Austrian ?"
Austrian Economics explains both sides of the story and it explains it according to basic logic and observation. There is a reason mainsteam economists did not and could not predict the 2008 crises, the fundamentals of mainstream economics is not logical and causes the boom and bust cycle. Austrian economists around the world had predicted that and previous crises well before they occured. Austrian economics truly understands the business cycle.

Is there nothing else to do up there in Brisbane

?
howm is responssible for the money?
Do you suggest that some other, institution than "the govts" isue and guaranti the value
" of the money "
Iff you recognise the "value" of the money, i'm sure you find "the govts" (they represent the National states (any) that print "the money").ovn them,so it's theirs(yours).
They are entiteld and obligated to secure (manipulate) "the money".
arn't they?

cheers