[ExI] government corruption

[painlord2k at libero.it]

Il 22/02/2009 6.21, Damien Broderick ha scritto:
> At 11:26 PM 2/21/2009 -0500, Rafal wrote:

> Apparently--to my continuing astonishment--fucking up their records of
> one's dealings with them, as they do repeatedly, either carelessly or
> guilefully, so one is baselessly listed in credit reports as a
> defaulter, and then they take forever to fix it, after one spends hours
> on the phone to useless "staff", or they never do. In addition, as my
> financial advisor noted:

Do you note that large banks are very friendly with the government and 
the government is very friendly with the large banks?
Do you know why?

This is where business <--> Government corruption happen.
Instead to protect citizen from fraudulent act, the government pass laws 
shielding the bank (and other business like them) from the claims of 
their clients.

The other side of the question is "Why did you not change Credit Card 
provider"?



>> Are you referring to the way credit card companies advertise interest
>> rates of, say, 5% and then raise them to 29% because the fine print in
>> the contract says they can raise the rates whenever they feel like it?

> That sort of thing. Or could I be thinking of some other kind of
> company, or just about every other kind of company if it's big enough?
> My financial advisor again:








> < Large banks are an especially bad kind of large company. Federal law
> is incredibly biased in favor of large banks. IMO, it's quite accurate
> to characterize large banks as quasi-states, rather than private firms.

My point.
They are no more in a free market, as the government over regulate the 
market in a way intended to protect and help the existing banks (that 
shell bug money for the politicos).
Also, the existence of a Central bank, controlled by the government, 
that can inflate the money supply at will, is only possible with the 
government support. Private that create their own money supply are 
called "forgers" and severely punished when apprehended.

> Or perhaps integral parts of the federal government. The fact that
> certain banks have been characterized as "too large" to allow to fail is
> a clear illustration of the difference between large banks and private
> firms. >

So, this is my point, 100%.
When anything is "too large to fail" it is by default part of the 
government. Because governments are "too large to fail".

> Is this all due to the omnipresence, omnipotence and firepower of
> governments? Maybe so, but it might also be a function of *massive size
> in any enterprise* overwhelming all the processes hunter gatherers are
> evolved to employ in close-knit groups of 100 or so--unless an
> extraordinary and insightful and ceaselessly scrutiny is brought to bear.

This is an interesting question.

Rothbard wrote about this: bigger business become inefficient as 
governments when they growth too large, if the relations between 
different branches are not market driven (if any branch don't pay for 
what it receive from another branch and have no way to buy the same 
service or good from external sources). It is not that people in a 
government is or become evil and people in a private business is or 
become good. It is, mainly, that where there is not a market, 
misallocation and inefficiency happen.
And the government, for how they are organized, are usually bigger than 
private business and not market driven.

The size of the group, to be most efficient, must be smaller than 100. 
140 is the number of Dumbar and is a maximum, not the most efficient 
number. Smaller is better. Much smaller. Like 30.

Transhumans could have a brain enhancement / modification that let them 
manage bigger groups. So the size of a group of transhumans working 
together efficiently could growth. This could be a feature of any 
"singularity" scenario.
We keep our individuality, but are able to work in large groups and keep 
at bay defectors and parasites.
This would be very useful in a libertarian group of transhumans.


Mirco