Grumpy AuContraire

Tegger wrote:
> dgk <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in
> newsgt6j5diqa1ahegk6h6qu058gh2b2jh7nf@4ax.com:
>
>
>> Everything is a corporation but actually I work for a non-profit. I
>> could make more money working for a big bank but I don't want to.
>
>
>
> Most governments are corporations too.
>
>
>> So Tegger, how come no one stops foreign aid?
>
>
>
> Ever heard of"rent seeking"? Combine that with governmental inertia and you
> have an unstoppable machine.
>
> It's the exact same thing that makes /any/ government program so hard to
> kill once established.
>
>
>
>
>> Republicans should be
>> screaming to stop giving our hard earned money to those losers. But it
>> never happens, does it? Because the wealthy in this countrly make
>> money from it.
>
>
>
> /Everybody involved/ makes money from it, from the lowliest receptionist or
> warehouse worker to the president of the NGO or government department.
>
> It's the exact same thing that makes /any/ government program so hard to
> kill once established.



I think that it can be safely stated that no government has ever created
wealth but corporations certainly have. That "wealth" then filters on
down in many different directions only to be diluted by a tax system
operated by the government.

And yes, create a program, DEA for example and try to kill the beast...
Never happen!

JT

Grumpy AuContraire

jim beam wrote:
> On 12/24/2009 07:40 AM, Tegger wrote:
>> dgk<dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in
>> newsgt6j5diqa1ahegk6h6qu058gh2b2jh7nf@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Everything is a corporation but actually I work for a non-profit. I
>>> could make more money working for a big bank but I don't want to.
>>
>>
>>
>> Most governments are corporations too.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So Tegger, how come no one stops foreign aid?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ever heard of"rent seeking"?
>
> wow, go to the top of the class!!!
>
>
>> Combine that with governmental inertia and you
>> have an unstoppable machine.
>
> You'll enjoy this:
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/113092ee-c...44feabdc0.html
>
>


Good read.

I have often wondered just what it takes to penetrate the barrier that
separates the super powerful and the rest of us...

JT

Tegger

jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote in
news:Vuedndf7fOQxC67WnZ2dnUVZ_rdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t:

> On 12/24/2009 07:40 AM, Tegger wrote:
>> dgk<dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in
>> newsgt6j5diqa1ahegk6h6qu058gh2b2jh7nf@4ax.com:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Everything is a corporation but actually I work for a non-profit. I
>>> could make more money working for a big bank but I don't want to.
>>
>>
>>
>> Most governments are corporations too.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So Tegger, how come no one stops foreign aid?
>>
>>
>>
>> Ever heard of"rent seeking"?
>
> wow, go to the top of the class!!!
>
>
>> Combine that with governmental inertia and you
>> have an unstoppable machine.
>
> You'll enjoy this:
> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/113092ee-c...44feabdc0.html



Interesting article, and I largely agree with it, except for John Kay's
final conclusions.

Nobody can practice "rent seeking" unless government employees help them
do it. "Rent seeking" is by definition a manipulation of state power.
Specifically, it's the manipulation of the state's power to control the
economy, its participants and its financial output.

The other day in the Wall Street Journal, there was a very interesting
article having to with, of all things, catfish.
<http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126144983541901133.html>

It seems that in 2002 American catfish producers were upset at the fact
that importers were bringing in Vietnamese catfish at a lower price than
domestic catfish sold for. So they successfully lobbied the federal
government to change the law so that Vietnemese catfish could no longer
be labelled as "catfish".

This failed to have an impact on sales, so in 2003 they lobbied
(successfully again) to have a high tariff imposed on the Vietnamese
product. That didn't help either.

Their next step was to play the "safety" card, but when the FDA ruled
that there was no evidence that Vietnamese catfish posed any risk to the
public, the US catfish lobby got legislators to put an amendment into to
the 2008 Farm Bill that transferred jurisdiction over catfish from the
FDA (the seafood regulator) to the USDA (which normally has nothing to
do with seafood), in the hopes that they might find more sympathetic
regulators in the USDA.

What's happening right now is that the industry lobby is trying to get
the USDA to REDEFINE Vietnamese catfish to be a CATFISH again (reversing
its 2002 efforts). Why? I'm not sure. But what /is/ certain is that the
lobby is /still/ trying to get government workers to ban foreign catfish
for "safety" reasons, thus providing the government-enforced subsidy
that US catfish producers lust for.

The important point here is simply that unless you have government
employees willing and able to use their power to control the economy,
"rent seeking" is /impossible/ no matter how big and rich a private
company is.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Tegger

Grumpy AuContraire <GrumpyOne@GrumpyvilleNOT.com> wrote in
news:6eWdnaVIp7vWQ67WnZ2dnUVZ_shi4p2d@giganews.com :

> jim beam wrote:
>> On 12/24/2009 07:40 AM, Tegger wrote:
>>> dgk<dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in

>>
>>
>>> Combine that with governmental inertia and you
>>> have an unstoppable machine.
>>
>> You'll enjoy this:
>> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/113092ee-c...44feabdc0.html
>>
>>
>
>
> Good read.
>
> I have often wondered just what it takes to penetrate the barrier that
> separates the super powerful and the rest of us...
>



It's simple (and at the same time nearly impossible): Remove power from
the people who work for the state.

"Rent seeking" is quite simply impossible without a state power
apparatus to carry it out under force of arms. And that apparatus means
people no smarter or more knowledgeable than you or me, only wielding
power that you and I do not.

See this book for an excellent and eye-opening read:
<http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Robber-Barons-Burton-Folsom/dp/0963020315>

And if you truly care about this matter, you'll go through the many
cases of iniquity and rent-seeking outlined on the Institute for
Justice's Website:
<http://www.ij.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=552&Item id=281>


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

jim beam

On 12/26/2009 03:29 PM, Tegger wrote:
> jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote in
> news:Vuedndf7fOQxC67WnZ2dnUVZ_rdi4p2d@speakeasy.ne t:
>
>> On 12/24/2009 07:40 AM, Tegger wrote:
>>> dgk<dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in
>>> newsgt6j5diqa1ahegk6h6qu058gh2b2jh7nf@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Everything is a corporation but actually I work for a non-profit. I
>>>> could make more money working for a big bank but I don't want to.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Most governments are corporations too.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So Tegger, how come no one stops foreign aid?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ever heard of"rent seeking"?
>>
>> wow, go to the top of the class!!!
>>
>>
>>> Combine that with governmental inertia and you
>>> have an unstoppable machine.
>>
>> You'll enjoy this:
>> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/113092ee-c...44feabdc0.html
>
>
>
> Interesting article, and I largely agree with it, except for John Kay's
> final conclusions.
>
> Nobody can practice "rent seeking" unless government employees help them
> do it. "Rent seeking" is by definition a manipulation of state power.
> Specifically, it's the manipulation of the state's power to control the
> economy, its participants and its financial output.
>
> The other day in the Wall Street Journal, there was a very interesting
> article having to with, of all things, catfish.
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126144983541901133.html>
>
> It seems that in 2002 American catfish producers were upset at the fact
> that importers were bringing in Vietnamese catfish at a lower price than
> domestic catfish sold for. So they successfully lobbied the federal
> government to change the law so that Vietnemese catfish could no longer
> be labelled as "catfish".
>
> This failed to have an impact on sales, so in 2003 they lobbied
> (successfully again) to have a high tariff imposed on the Vietnamese
> product. That didn't help either.
>
> Their next step was to play the "safety" card, but when the FDA ruled
> that there was no evidence that Vietnamese catfish posed any risk to the
> public, the US catfish lobby got legislators to put an amendment into to
> the 2008 Farm Bill that transferred jurisdiction over catfish from the
> FDA (the seafood regulator) to the USDA (which normally has nothing to
> do with seafood), in the hopes that they might find more sympathetic
> regulators in the USDA.
>
> What's happening right now is that the industry lobby is trying to get
> the USDA to REDEFINE Vietnamese catfish to be a CATFISH again (reversing
> its 2002 efforts). Why? I'm not sure. But what /is/ certain is that the
> lobby is /still/ trying to get government workers to ban foreign catfish
> for "safety" reasons, thus providing the government-enforced subsidy
> that US catfish producers lust for.
>
> The important point here is simply that unless you have government
> employees willing and able to use their power to control the economy,
> "rent seeking" is /impossible/ no matter how big and rich a private
> company is.

one of the ones i like is mercury in tuna. usda acceptable mercury
content keeps being raised as these fish become more and more polluted,
and yet, the same tuna in the came cans, if opened in a fda lab, because
of it's mercury content, would be classified as toxic waste. why the
disparity? so that it doesn't "kill the industry"!

there's no disputing mercury toxicity. it's simply " the consumer"
- just as long as the few people that own the multi-million dollar tuna
industry keep coughing up their campaign contributions!

Tegger

jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote in news:y_udnVRpII_
4AqvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net:

> On 12/26/2009 03:29 PM, Tegger wrote:

>>
>> The important point here is simply that unless you have government
>> employees willing and able to use their power to control the economy,
>> "rent seeking" is /impossible/ no matter how big and rich a private
>> company is.
>
> one of the ones i like is mercury in tuna. usda acceptable mercury
> content keeps being raised as these fish become more and more polluted,
> and yet, the same tuna in the came cans, if opened in a fda lab, because
> of it's mercury content, would be classified as toxic waste. why the
> disparity? so that it doesn't "kill the industry"!
>
> there's no disputing mercury toxicity. it's simply " the consumer"
> - just as long as the few people that own the multi-million dollar tuna
> industry keep coughing up their campaign contributions!
>
>



Aha, so /that's/ the "safety angle the catfish lobbyists
are trying to pull: Mercury.

Since fish is always high in mercury, but land-based food is not, the FDA
and the USDA could have widely divergent allowable-mercury levels.

If the catfish lobby succeeds in having the USDA regulate the Vietnamese
variety of catfish (and only that kind), the USDA would have to create a
new category for that product. And guess who would "help" the USDA
formulate the regulations? The catfish lobby, that's who! And they'd make
certain the Vietnamese fish was found to contain too much mercury to be
"safe", even though if it contained no more mercury than any other fish,
domestic or foreign.

Thus the US catfish lobby would use US government power to ensure
protection from foreign competitors, even as US consumers pay for that
protection in higher prices. "Rent seeking" triumphs again!



--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

jim beam

On 12/27/2009 11:28 AM, Tegger wrote:
> jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote in news:y_udnVRpII_
> 4AqvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@speakeasy.net:
>
>> On 12/26/2009 03:29 PM, Tegger wrote:
>
>>>
>>> The important point here is simply that unless you have government
>>> employees willing and able to use their power to control the economy,
>>> "rent seeking" is /impossible/ no matter how big and rich a private
>>> company is.
>>
>> one of the ones i like is mercury in tuna. usda acceptable mercury
>> content keeps being raised as these fish become more and more polluted,
>> and yet, the same tuna in the came cans, if opened in a fda lab, because
>> of it's mercury content, would be classified as toxic waste. why the
>> disparity? so that it doesn't "kill the industry"!
>>
>> there's no disputing mercury toxicity. it's simply " the consumer"
>> - just as long as the few people that own the multi-million dollar tuna
>> industry keep coughing up their campaign contributions!
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Aha, so /that's/ the "safety angle the catfish lobbyists
> are trying to pull: Mercury.
>
> Since fish is always high in mercury, but land-based food is not, the FDA
> and the USDA could have widely divergent allowable-mercury levels.
>
> If the catfish lobby succeeds in having the USDA regulate the Vietnamese
> variety of catfish (and only that kind), the USDA would have to create a
> new category for that product. And guess who would "help" the USDA
> formulate the regulations? The catfish lobby, that's who! And they'd make
> certain the Vietnamese fish was found to contain too much mercury to be
> "safe", even though if it contained no more mercury than any other fish,
> domestic or foreign.
>
> Thus the US catfish lobby would use US government power to ensure
> protection from foreign competitors, even as US consumers pay for that
> protection in higher prices. "Rent seeking" triumphs again!
>
>
>

no idea how the vietnamese raise catfish, but fwiu, mercury is mostly an
ocean fish problem, particularly predatory ocean fish like tuna.
catfish are mostly freshwater [right?] and one of the few fish capable
of being farmed on a vegetarian diet. both mitigate against mercury.

don't talk to me about the logic or efficiency of farmed predatory fish
like salmon - they need to be fed other fish. and i absolutely fail to
see the point of having to catch three times the poundage of other fish,
simply to "farm" one pound of salmon.

which gets us back to catfish - one of the few logical fish to farm. we
should encourage foreigners to raise it and stop depleting the oceans,
not try to suppress it.

billzz

On Dec 27, 12:09 pm, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 12/27/2009 11:28 AM, Tegger wrote:
>
>
>
> > jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote in news:y_udnVRpII_
> > 4AqvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCdn...@speakeasy.net:
>
> >> On 12/26/2009 03:29 PM, Tegger wrote:
>
> >>> The important point here is simply that unless you have government
> >>> employees willing and able to use their power to control the economy,
> >>> "rent seeking" is /impossible/ no matter how big and rich a private
> >>> company is.
>
> >> one of the ones i like is mercury in tuna. usda acceptable mercury
> >> content keeps being raised as these fish become more and more polluted,
> >> and yet, the same tuna in the came cans, if opened in a fda lab, because
> >> of it's mercury content, would be classified as toxic waste. why the
> >> disparity? so that it doesn't "kill the industry"!
>
> >> there's no disputing mercury toxicity. it's simply " the consumer"
> >> - just as long as the few people that own the multi-million dollar tuna
> >> industry keep coughing up their campaign contributions!
>
> > Aha, so /that's/ the "safety angle the catfish lobbyists
> > are trying to pull: Mercury.
>
> > Since fish is always high in mercury, but land-based food is not, the FDA
> > and the USDA could have widely divergent allowable-mercury levels.
>
> > If the catfish lobby succeeds in having the USDA regulate the Vietnamese
> > variety of catfish (and only that kind), the USDA would have to create a
> > new category for that product. And guess who would "help" the USDA
> > formulate the regulations? The catfish lobby, that's who! And they'd make
> > certain the Vietnamese fish was found to contain too much mercury to be
> > "safe", even though if it contained no more mercury than any other fish,
> > domestic or foreign.
>
> > Thus the US catfish lobby would use US government power to ensure
> > protection from foreign competitors, even as US consumers pay for that
> > protection in higher prices. "Rent seeking" triumphs again!
>
> no idea how the vietnamese raise catfish, but fwiu, mercury is mostly an
> ocean fish problem, particularly predatory ocean fish like tuna.
> catfish are mostly freshwater [right?] and one of the few fish capable
> of being farmed on a vegetarian diet. both mitigate against mercury.
>
> don't talk to me about the logic or efficiency of farmed predatory fish
> like salmon - they need to be fed other fish. and i absolutely fail to
> see the point of having to catch three times the poundage of other fish,
> simply to "farm" one pound of salmon.
>
> which gets us back to catfish - one of the few logical fish to farm. we
> should encourage foreigners to raise it and stop depleting the oceans,
> not try to suppress it.

I was just passing by and know how the Vietnamese raise Tilapia,
because I saw the US AID project in the Mekong Delta. They made a few
rice paddies into fish farms, and stocked with baby Tilapia. The
obvious question was, "What do they eat, since a rice paddy is
enclosed?" The answer became obvious as one of the villagers climbed
a ladder to one of the small shacks over the paddy, and soon small
brown objects began falling into a whirling swarm of jumping fish.
The AID rep. said, "That's why the GIs call them 'shitfish.'"

jim beam

On 12/27/2009 01:10 PM, billzz wrote:
> On Dec 27, 12:09�pm, jim beam<m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 12/27/2009 11:28 AM, Tegger wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> jim beam<m...@privacy.net> �wrote in news:y_udnVRpII_
>>> 4AqvWnZ2dnUVZ_hCdn...@speakeasy.net:
>>
>>>> On 12/26/2009 03:29 PM, Tegger wrote:
>>
>>>>> The important point here is simply that unless you have government
>>>>> employees willing and able to use their power to control the economy,
>>>>> "rent seeking" is /impossible/ no matter how big and rich a private
>>>>> company is.
>>
>>>> one of the ones i like is mercury in tuna. �usda acceptable mercury
>>>> content keeps being raised as these fish become more and more polluted,
>>>> and yet, the same tuna in the came cans, if opened in a fda lab, because
>>>> of it's mercury content, would be classified as toxic waste. �why the
>>>> disparity? �so that it doesn't "kill the industry"!
>>
>>>> there's no disputing mercury toxicity. �it's simply " the consumer"
>>>> - just as long as the few people that own the multi-million dollar tuna
>>>> industry keep coughing up their campaign contributions!
>>
>>> Aha, so /that's/ the "safety angle the catfish lobbyists
>>> are trying to pull: Mercury.
>>
>>> Since fish is always high in mercury, but land-based food is not, the FDA
>>> and the USDA could have widely divergent allowable-mercury levels.
>>
>>> If the catfish lobby succeeds in having the USDA regulate the Vietnamese
>>> variety of catfish (and only that kind), the USDA would have to create a
>>> new category for that product. And guess who would "help" the USDA
>>> formulate the regulations? The catfish lobby, that's who! And they'd make
>>> certain the Vietnamese fish was found to contain too much mercury to be
>>> "safe", even though if it contained no more mercury than any other fish,
>>> domestic or foreign.
>>
>>> Thus the US catfish lobby would use US government power to ensure
>>> protection from foreign competitors, even as US consumers pay for that
>>> protection in higher prices. "Rent seeking" triumphs again!
>>
>> no idea how the vietnamese raise catfish, but fwiu, mercury is mostly an
>> ocean fish problem, particularly predatory ocean fish like tuna.
>> catfish are mostly freshwater [right?] and one of the few fish capable
>> of being farmed on a vegetarian diet. �both mitigate against mercury.
>>
>> don't talk to me about the logic or efficiency of farmed predatory fish
>> like salmon - they need to be fed other fish. �and i absolutely fail to
>> see the point of having to catch three times the poundage of other fish,
>> simply to "farm" one pound of salmon.
>>
>> which gets us back to catfish - one of the few logical fish to farm. �we
>> should encourage foreigners to raise it and stop depleting the oceans,
>> not try to suppress it.
>
> I was just passing by and know how the Vietnamese raise Tilapia,
> because I saw the US AID project in the Mekong Delta. They made a few
> rice paddies into fish farms, and stocked with baby Tilapia. The
> obvious question was, "What do they eat, since a rice paddy is
> enclosed?" The answer became obvious as one of the villagers climbed
> a ladder to one of the small shacks over the paddy, and soon small
> brown objects began falling into a whirling swarm of jumping fish.
> The AID rep. said, "That's why the GIs call them 'shitfish.'"

that seems perfectly efficient to me!

Cameo

"billzz" <billzz@wildblue.net> wrote in message
news:ef188206-ad21-4ff8-aa00-1c2f32dd9ad1@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> I was just passing by and know how the Vietnamese raise Tilapia,
> because I saw the US AID project in the Mekong Delta. They made a few
> rice paddies into fish farms, and stocked with baby Tilapia. The
> obvious question was, "What do they eat, since a rice paddy is
> enclosed?" The answer became obvious as one of the villagers climbed
> a ladder to one of the small shacks over the paddy, and soon small
> brown objects began falling into a whirling swarm of jumping fish.
> The AID rep. said, "That's why the GIs call them 'shitfish.'"

Holy sh*t, and I used to order tilapia at Applebees! Not anymore.