Who will license drivers?

Since handing out driver’s licenses is clearly not one of government’s tasks, (driver’s licensing has little to do with owning the road), in a stateless society the only interested party would handle driver’s licensing: insurance companies. After all, if someone can’t drive, they probably cause lots of accidents costing the insurance company lots of money; causing them to demand proof of skill before they grant a driver’s license. (Translated from the official Dutch title, literally “evidence of driving skill”).
Hold on, one might say: wouldn’t a rich guy just drive without insurance and expevt to pay for any damages he causes out of pocket? (Perhaps injuring or killing people)
Well: in a stateless society the wealth would likely be distributed more evenly, because the opportunities to become rich would be equalized: there would be no ridiculous licensing requirements to open a business anywhere, no crony capitalism (see (1) below).
But apart from the fact that everybody would be more or less equally rich:
Some road owners (remember: businesses may run an access road to their business to get customers to be able to reach them), will refuse such drivers access to their roads, making their car useless, as well as harmless.
This is another balancing check to ensure that people actually pass driver’s exams before they go on a drive.
This will ensure sufficiently high standards for safe road conditions. And those standards will not be set ridiculously high, or nobody will pass their exams, meaning that THAT insurance company will not be able to sell car insurance, if only because nobody will try to buy it from THEM, they will seek out a different insurance company, that may have slightly higher rates because actually selling insurance would mean they occasionally have to pay out, raising costs, which will have to be paid by consumers.
This will see to it, that it will not be unduly difficult to pass a driving exam.

(1): this does not mean that in stateless society there would be heavy industry in rural housing communities, polluting the heck out of the neighbours: because, once again, interested parties (the neighbours), would object to having their interests harmed, by noisy, smelly petro-industry, noisy, hazardous big rigs driving to and fro, carrying heavy cargo.

In short, the current situation, where the government owns the roads and grants (ocasionally) driver’s licenses, is wrong on so many counts, that it is just another reason to embrace statelessness: the government does get a lot of its loot from taxing driving/car sales/ownership and not spending that money on building enough roads, but still they are not strongly incentivised to pass standards of decency on their monopolist driver’s licensing agency because being a totalitarian dictatorship, they can raise taxes on whatever they want, and still get their money from the citizenry.

While it’s  true that the Dutch CBR, Central Bureau for Driver’s Licensing (yes, comrsde, thst is its actual name), is a private business, they are not a true market operator, because they have a government monopoly, and follow government’s rules, so they are as close to a government agency as it gets, without strictly legally being one. Being the government that makes and changes the laws, has its perks.

Why does capitalism work better than socialism?

Socialism, being dictatorial, lets evertyhing (it’s always totalitarian) be decided by one person, unlike capitalism, which lets everything get decided by the market, which consists of millions of “one person”s. So, yes, capitalism is more social.

And anarchism, with its zero rulers, is the most social and democratic of all.

Why is money better (easier) than barter?

Occassionally, you hear people complain about money, (“unnatural”; “root of all evil” etc.). There are even, small communes where people experiment with #barter economies. Barter is fine, when you have a simple society, and a simple market.

But, for (say) the production of a television, barter does not suffice. Think: what makes up a television? Oil (for the plastics), sand (for the silicon), copper (for the wiring inside, and for the power cable), those bits require  purchasing from very different people/corporations, in differing quantities, and at different prices. Try to account for that (and for the wages for the #workers involved, in all stages of #production.) in the list price.

“The labour required to drill for oil cost me, the oil baron,  all of 10 chickens (which means I have to acquire chickens from somewhere, before I can drill for oil: barter-banking with livestock? Let’s not go there.)” (leaving out the wear and tear on machinery, their depreciation)

“And I, the plastics manufacturer, will end up paying the oil company 10 chickens, for the resource I need for my product), my labour force is made up of vegetarians, so I can’t pay them with chickens, and raw unprocessed plastics won’t work either: what use do they have for that?  instead I paid them in lettuce. Where I got the lettuce is a whole other complication, let’s skip that for now (I need to pay my workers on time, so I can’t always wait until my plastics have all been used by the next manufacturer in the chain. Besides that, a next manufacturer makes TV sets, how many does a person need? Or how many can they store in their house? And how did they pay for that house? Did they build it themselves? And where did they get the bricks etc? 

Sometimes my resurces get bought up by a toy maker, or by the makers of park benches/garden furniture (which is particularly useless in high rise buildings).

Talking about appartment buildings (high rise): how would those be paid/built in a barter #economy? (or in the Soviet Union)
Etc, but you get the idea

War is imminent?

Some professor wanted to have his time in the sun, by warning for a war between the US and China. Perhaps he (being a professor) was so partisan that he wanted to fan the anti-Trump flame.
Please let me asure you here: such a war will never happen. Because the US would never start a war like that (and the US has been nearly the sole starter of wars for as long as I can remember, so the chances of China doing it are negligible.) The US will not do that, because that country is bankrupt. In order to continue its hobby of invading/occupying/subdueing the world, DC has to beg for money from China. And somehow I do not think that China will subsidize the attack against itself.
Though: never say never, when the Chinese government recognizes such an occupation as a convenient means of ridding itself of pesky domestic trouble-makers, perhaps the government will then go into hiding until the US withdraws.
Now, who’s the superpower now, huh?
Not the USA, with thanks to the governments’ squandering of money and economy.
Commies can keep their victorious crowing about “this prooves communism is better than capitalism.” to themselves, because:
it only shows that China’s version of communism is less unsuccesful than the one practiced in the US, which (as said) depends very heavily on military aggression.
But it stil is communism, just like China has: centrallization of power.
The key difference is, therefore: #military #aggression is key to any hopes of dooming the economy. (And also requires centrallization of power, because no sensible individual willingly destroys possessions & lives & ecosystems)
Also, China is currently going through its own #roaringTwenties (just like the US economy did in the 1920s and between the 1980s and early 2000s) so will soon experience a 1930s-style #depression (just like the west did since 2008).

Ttansportation & economics

It would appear that goverment has spent decades, trying to force people out of private transport, into public mass transit. Because the latter is supposed to be better for the environment.
Of course, an informed person would beg to differ: cars/motorbikes only travel because the occupant has to go somewhere. Buses travel because the schedule says they have to, not because the passenger load /availability says so. Meaning they often travel with too few (or less, at times downright zero) passengers.
“But if we create more roads, the traffic jams stil occur, it just leads to more people driving!” Ah, and that might almost be called Say’s law (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Say%27s_law) (Jean-Baptiste Say , French economist & buzinessman lived from 1767 to 1832: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Baptiste_Say), which simply put says that supply will create its own demand. According to that, supplying more roads will create more demand for them, ie will cause more traffic jams instead of solving them.
Now, mister oh-so-green activist, tell me: does Say’s law also apply to markets that have been so deliberately and grossly distorted as the market for transportation? There I can only identify malice on your part, wilfully sacrificing the environment you claim to find so precious, to your desire to eradicate anything private, and thus create the ideal, fully communist society.
When for decades there has been demand for more AND more cleverly designed roads, this demand has been vocally ignored on (false) grounds of environmentalism. Yet, the population has kept growing, in no small part thanks to you yourself, who insisted on allowing in more immigrants, plus the government actually subsidizes childbirth! So the demand for transportation has inevitably grown.
This way, you have been exposed as being an utterly selfish hypocrite, and a dangerous communist. And you have also proven that transportation is an area that the governnment should stay out of.

Seevalso the post about peak pricing :http://wp.me/p8008w-6M.

Difference between Austrian and Keynesian economics

I had a question about this difference between Austrian and Keynesian economics:
According to Austrian teaching, saving money, not spending (Keynes) it, leads to increased wealth.
Fine: but money spent will end up as savings in shop-employees (& owners) bankaccounts, so this savings accumulation follows a (wealth increasing) financial transaction.
Makes you woder how the Austrians are right, and the Keynesians are not? Since the Austrians forego a financial transaction, it may seem as if Keynes was right here.

So Ibasked this question in the facebook group “Praxeological science”. The answer I got was very helpful in recognizing the short-coming in my own reasoning. Namely, that the shopkeeper turns into a consumer, and the following shopkeepers also follow this same cycle.
Now, when the interest rate is very low, there’s not much point in saving, so the consumer will simply re-spend the money quickly. Thereby turning the shopkeeper into a future consumer with that money.
He will very likely (at least, if the Keynesians get their way) also not save, but spend. This way money is forever in transit, meaning banks have no idea of the size of the supply of money they can lend out. Money may be in checking accounts in banks (maybe even the same bank), but checking accounts don’t have the most stable balance: they exist for money to be drawn out of frequently, savings accounts yield interest, because the money in them can be lent out with much more comfort: their balances are much more stable/predictable.

Also, the Austrians do not forego a financial transaction, rather they defer (postpone) a consumer transaction to gain a producer one. So suddenly, the Austrian schol is up one transaction!

Zero-sum games

Economics/wealth is not a zero-sum game. If it were the economy would only have regressed since the stone age (bigger population, same amount of wealth: less wealth per person)
So the sum of wealth increases due to workers adding value to /with each other’s fruits of their labour. Wealth does not start out at a maximum from which one can only extract.

People produce things, that other people buy and produce even more with. Long ago, a few guys working in a garage bought a few computers, and wrote software for them; now Microsoft is one of the biggest companies in the world, having its own very impressive offices. IBM (the company they bought their computers from and developed software for) is still a big company. In terms of Operating Systems for PCs, not so much, but that’s a different matter, they both profited from the succes of MS-DOS. So, leaving aside market saturation, which is different (and to a certain degree, that is a near zero-sum game), but their mutual succes helped the both of them.

Why is there so little political freedom? Because freedom IS a zero-sum game: the more freedom the people have, the less power the regimes have. And vice versa.