Republican Idea of Bi-Partisan HealthCare Reform

Almost anyone old enough to vote probably remembers the Obamacare fight of 2009\10.  It was a debate full of reason, toned-down emotion, and people being civil to each other... HAHAHAHA Yeah right.  The outrageous lies, hysteria, and stubbornness from Republican and conservatives quickly drowned out any reasonable concerns and disagreements.  I've compiled a very small sampling of the cartoons and signs from the time.

Add caption

So after that nonsense 8 years ago, we now have Republican president-elect Trump coming into office.  And Trump has called for Bi-Partisan reform of Obamacare from the Democrats.  If democratic officials go along with it, they are even more feckless than I realized.

Why Bernie Sanders Supporters Should Rejoice

Though Bernie Sanders lost the Democratic nomination(and is now set to endorse Hillary), those who supported him have a lot to celebrate.  It may not look like it now. It is easy to feel despair and disappointment when you've come so close to a dream and then just miss it - And getting a good man like Sanders nominated and then elected President was indeed a good dream. But there is no need to despair.  Once you take an honest account of the number of hurdles that candidate Sanders had to overcome, and take a look at the voter demographics... the future should look bright and shiny to you.

Before getting into the good parts, you must ask yourself: "Why do I support Bernie Sanders?" For most, the answer isn't just "cuz he's a nice guy". It is because he represented your values and views on so many different issues. It's not about Bernie Sanders. Sanders states this often,

I’m the only candidate who says no president, not Bernie Sanders, can do it all. You know what we need? We need a political revolution in this country

If you believe in that revolution, do not despair. It isn't about Bernie Sanders.

But Bernie Lost!

While it is true that Bernie lost, think about how close it was and all the hurdles that had to be overcome to even make it close.

Bernie Sanders was a flawed candidate.  Sanders was not a smooth talker.  He had an odd cadence and a Brooklyn accent that he never lost.  He was from a small state that doesn't have much influence in primary or general elections(like say, Iowa, Hew Hampshire, or Florida).   He was old.  Older than an other successful presidential candidate running for his first term.  I'm not saying that that meant he shouldn't be president, but to a lot of voters that can be detriment.  And of course, he'd spent the last 40 years calling himself a socialist. "Democratic socialist" or not, that is not a great way to get yourself elected in American politics.

And of course, Hillary Clinton.  Hillary and her husband are big names in the democratic party and lined up support for years behind a Hillary run.  That support brought almost the entire democratic establishment behind her.

What is your point already!?

In spite of all that, you almost got him the democratic nomination.  It shouldn't have been close. The establishment and the money was all aligned for Hillary Clinton. Bernie Sanders made a name for himself by taking on very powerful interests, interests that would want to see him crushed.  And yet, you almost got him nominated.  A flawed candidate, with no powerful friends, against an establishment figure and he damn near won.  That. doesn't. happen.

Now, look at the demographics of who supported Sanders and who supported Clinton.  Sanders had the young crowd.  Clinton had voters over 60, Sanders had voters under 30.  Even among African Americans - where Hillary dominated Sanders - the younger generation was much closer.  What do you think is going to happen in 4, 8, 12 years from now?  That older generation will be smaller and the younger generation will be larger. If this primary contest would play out 8 or even just 4 years from now, it would very likely end up differently.  Based on demographics, it is only going to keep getting better and easier for the next 20 years or so.

Furthermore, imagine a candidate that doesn't have as many disadvantages as the Sanders Campaign. That isn't going up against the entire democratic establishment, is younger, didn't claim to be a socialist, from a larger state, a little smoother, but still took on powerful interests.  Heck, with a candidate like that, (s)he might've beat Hillary in 2016.

I am optimistic about the future.  If you are a Bernie supporter, you should be too.  In 4 or 8 years, another candidate is going to run for president that has all of the same qualities you like about Bernie Sanders. That candidate is going to have better demographics going into the election, and likely have less hurdles than Sanders did in 2016.  And it'll only keep getting easier.  We are looking at a left-wing that can easily get candidates nominated and elected for the next 20 years. That is something to smile about.

Why Blogger is better than Wordpress

I am an oddball for moving my blogging from Wordpress to Google's Blogger.  Most people go the other way.  They start with blogger - because it is a great starter platform - and then eventually move to Wordpress.  In fact, I did that, but now I'm moving back to Blogger. Here's why I'm an oddball for doing it, and why more bloggers should be oddballs.

Wordpress Vs. Blogger Compare & Contrast

This compare is based on a self-hosted wordpress blog(i.e. wordpress.org). I won't compare the wordpress.com hosting with blogger because Blogger is just SOOO obviously better than wordpress.com.  If anyone wants to argue otherwise, I will gladly squash your counter-points in the comments :)

Blogger is Free!

Blogger is free.  I do not have to pay any hosting costs for it. It is hard to argue with free. Wordpress, on the other hand, requires you to purchase shared hosting or better. That can start around 50$ a year and go up as your blog becomes more popular and has to deal with traffic spikes.

Some might say that you have to pay for a domain name or a 'premium' theme.  However, you'd have to pay for those things on a wordpress blog in addition to hosting.  So that's no argument.

Blogger is Easy to Maintain

With Blogger, I do not have to deal with updates or maintenance. If I have a wordpress blog, I have worry about keeping the software up to date, plugins up to date, even my theme. Admittedly, this only requires a small amount of time... that is... until something goes wrong with the update.  Then your must spend hours - maybe days fixing it. It can mean that your website is down, or have reduced functionality while YOU have to figure it out.

Blogger Scales with Your Traffic

Most bloggers dream of getting a blog that is popular and gets a lot of web traffic. This dream can turn into a nightmare though once the blog's loading time starts climbing as your cheap hosting fails to keep up. At that point, you then have to detect that it is happening and upgrade your hardware. Which means more money and possibly a migration.

Blogger, on the other hand has a literally effortless process for upgrading. It just handles it. Period!  Your blog runs on Google's hardware which means they do all the monitoring and upgrading(probably not the correct word for what they do) for you.  There are no changes you have to make or pay for if your blog goes from 5 hits a day to 5 million hits a day.  The performance and page load times never change.

With wordpress, you could spend time fine-tuning your website, but again, that is time you spend on technical issues instead of blogging.  I know I would spend days testing out page cacheing, Content Delivery Networks, and trying to figure out which plugin is taking so long to load.

Blogger is Robust (Crashproof)

Another dream for a blogger is a big popular site links to one of your articles. This means a huge traffic spike. But, your website is running on cheap hosting and can't handle the spike and it instead crashes.  A lot of people call this the "Reddit" effect.(I'm old enough that I still refer to it as slashdotting.)  Now your blog instead of getting hundreds or even thousands of new readers, gets a bunch of fickle readers who now just know your site as being that slow and\or crashed site.

With Blogger, just like how it scales, it can handle big spikes and Google keeps your website humming.  Another benefit of running on Google Hardware.  And did I mention that it is free?  Of course, I suppose one might say that they will just pay for a higher level webhost for wordpress so they can stand-up to sudden traffic spikes.  But now it is just costing you more money in anticipation of an event you can't predict.

Some might argue with this point by pointing out a few instances in the past wher ethe entire blogger website went down. It has happened  But let me turn this around.  What about your cheap webhost?  How often has your host had a server go down, get taken down for upgrade or maintenance, and other piece goes down. I'm pretty sure that, on average, Google is coming out ahead in terms of uptime.

Blogger Security is a breeze.

One thing to worry about websites is hackers and other types of attacks.  With Blogger you can pretty much just sit back and relax.  Google engineer handle it.  As long as your google account is secure(At the very least, this means 2-step verification), you pretty much don't need to do anything else.

With wordpress, security means, first of all, making sure all your software is up to date.  And I do mean ALL of your software.  Wordpress, plugins, and themes. Plus, you need to make sure you're set to use the latest software of backend software your provider allows like php, apache, and MySQL.  They usually update these, but sometime you have to opt-in. Of course, this assumes your provider is keeping the backend up to date.

With wordpress, you also have to make sure every password is secure.  Your wordpress password, database password, and blog password.  If any of those is too easy, you're done.

Third, a lot of time, those free plugins and themes can offer hackers a fresh backdoor into your blog.  Not on purpose, but Wordpress can't guarantee the safety of every plugin.  So watching for security alerts on those is neccesary.

Fourth, security means setting up monitoring for hacks and the time it takes to monitor it.

Fifth, security can mean paying for extra protection from your cheap webhost.

But, But, Wordpress is Customizable

Customization and add-ons is the only place where Wordpress really shines.  But I think most people really overstate the case.  For the purpose of blogging, there are few things that can be done in Wordpress that can't be accomplished with Blogger.  The most common features like popular posts, display ads, analytics, Category\tagging, Pages, etc... are all there.  And further, are easier to setup in Blogger.  Also, both have tons and tons of free and premium themes.

If you want something beyond the basics, Blogger lets you edit your html directly and offer programming like tags that you can use.  Also, Blogger lets you include javascript on your page.  Between those 2 things, you can do a surprising amount with your Blogger blog.  So dont let anyone ever tell you that Blogger isnt very customizable (like most wordpress vs blogger posts claim).

Wordpress is customizable, but at what cost.

Granted, Wordpress is more customizable, and pretty easily so thanks to plugins. But that cuatomization comes at a cost.  Every time you add a plugin, you run the risk of slowing down your blog, opening a security risk, and one more thing that has to be maintained.  The net effect of this is that every time you make usr of the one advantage that wordpress has over Blogger, you excerbate the disadvantages of Wordpress.

But, But, Non Blogging ad-ons

You got me here. Because of plugins and themes, your wordpress blog can, in theory, do anything that any website can.  It can be a wiki, issue tracker, image organizer, etc...

Blogger cannot compete with that.  Because Blogger... is a Blogging platform!

In Conclusion

Most of my likes of Blogger over Wordpress is all about maintainability.   Wordpress takes away time from blogging as compared with Blogger.

I am not saying i would never use Wordpress again, it is an amazing piece of software.   The only time i would use it however, is when my budget allows me to pay for Managed Wordpress hosting.  That is costly,  however.  And meanwhile, ive got Blogger for free.  What a steal!

Show Hidden File on CPanel for any Web Host

cPanel Example

So here is the situation.  You've purchased inexpensive web hosting.  Like most hosts, they use cPanel to setup your website.  cPanel even lets you browse your web files directly.  But after using it for some time(or perhaps, even from the beginning) the file browser won't show your hidden files - those files that start with a period(.).

This is disastrous, the .dot files are where you can do advanced configuration for your website, but you don't see any of them.  You google it and there are some instructions for a few web hosts. Unfortunately, you can't find your host, the instructions didn't work, or the instructions require resetting your carefully cultivated settings.

If this has ever happened to you, here is the simple way to show your hidden files within the cPanel FileBrowser.  The procedure is simple enough.

The Procedure

Step 1. Open up the FileBrowser

Step 2. Look at the url for the page you're on. (That's the long text at the top of your browser, but you probably knew that being a webmaster.)

Example URL for the cPanel File Browser

Step 3. Add the following text to the end of the url "&showhidden=1" so it looks like below

Alternative step 3) If the url contains the text "&showhidden=0" then we just need to modify it.  Change the "0" or "false" to "1".

https://host316.hostmonster.com:2083/cpsess9099661848/frontend/hostmonster/filemanager/index.html?post_login=83061240832053&showhidden=1

Step 4. Press Enter (so as to reload the page)

Voila!  The file browser will now show all of your hidden files.

Why does this work?

In case the procedure above doesn't work, i will go into some detail of what it is we are doing in the procedure  That way, it may help you solve your problem.

So, what is going on here? Websites as advanced as cPanel often use what are called "Get parameters" or "Get variables".  They can do anything from configuration, keeping track of you, or provide other options for rendering.

These "get parameters" are easy to see.  They will be in the url.  They always have the following format.  After the rest of the URL there will be a question mark(?) to indicate the beginning of the "Get Parameters". After the question mark will be the name of the parameter, an equal sign, and then the value.  If there are more than 1 Get Parameter in a url they will be separated by a ampersand(&).  A value for a Get Parameter can be text, like "Game-of-Thrones" or can be a number like "314" or "1.34".

Together it all has the following layout

[first part of url]?[firstParameterName]=[firstParameterValue]&[secondName]=[secondValue]&etc

So when you add the text &showhidden=1, you are telling cPanel that the value of "showhidden" is "1" for the page you are loading.  But, you may ask, why set it to "1"?  That doesn't make any sense!  Here's the explanation:

The parameter showhidden is called a "boolean" value. That's jargon meaning the only values it can be is "true" or "false". For arcane and historical reasons, programs can also use "0" to mean false and "1" to mean true.  So when we set showhidden=1 what we are telling cPanel is showhidden=true. Which is a true statement. It is true that we want cPanel to show hidden files.

Hope this article was helpful!

The Truth About the Greek Loan Default

The events surrounding Greece's default is the culmination of everything wrong with the world order today:  An incorrect view of how modern currency works; a cultish adherence to debt repayment, a political order that puts the interests of international creditors ahead of ordinary workers, and a complete inability for the international power elite to admit they are wrong.

Of all the things that are wrong, I think the most perverse is the cultish attitude towards debt repayment.  Greece has no ability to pay back its debt.  For the last 5 years, it has agreed to almost every cut in government spending the E.U. and IMF have insisted on.  It has raised its retirement age by over a decade to 67.  It has continually increased taxes.  And yet, when none of these worked, the elite demanded more, more, and more.  Never considering that its time to declare bankruptcy and start over.

Despite 5 years of making things worse, The IMF, E.U. and World Bank continue to hold to their same old prescriptions: Cut government services to the poor, cut health care spending, raise taxes on labor, and cut taxes on capital.  That's right, you read that last part correctly.  As they insist on raising sales taxes - they call it VAT or Value-added-tax(the most regressive tax in modern democracies), they have insisted on Greece cutting corporate taxes.  The elite adhere to the idea of neoliberalism.  That if the country quits taxing capital and investment and moves taxes to a sales tax, at the same time they cut welfare then the country will prosper, tax revenues will go up, and the budget will be balanced.

Of course that idea has almost never worked.  (I can't think of a single instance where it did, but I'll say "almost" just in case there was one).  Despite this low success rate, the global elite keep trying to impose these policies on in-debt nations through the IMF, World Bank, and now... the European Central Bank.  Greece is only the latest causality.  It is shocking because its the first time the global elite have done this to an industrially advanced and well-developed country.  Their usual targets are 3rd world nations in Africa and Latin America.  Despite these neoliberal ideas hardly ever working, and not working in Greece for the last 5 years, they keep trying.  It is like a religion to them and they can't accept that it is failing.

Many people over simplify the problem by suggesting that Greece has "lived beyond its means" - I've seen that attitude in non-partisan business reports on the issue.  Thus trying to frame the whole thing as a morality play and those lazy-ass Greeks are getting what's coming to them.  This is a complete misunderstanding of currency and a reduction of a complex issue into willful ignorance.  They think that well if Greece is in debt, they just need to do what everyone else does: increase revenue and cut spending.

The problem is, if I do that, it affects very few people.  If a national government does that it affects a lot of people, raise unemployment, and put the entire country's economy into a tailspin... which results in lower, not higher revenue.  Also, if a person accumulates too much debt that they can't pay it, they can default.  A country cannot default without causing an entire economic shit-storm.  In addition, the E.U., IMF, and World Bank make it as hard as possible on countries that consider default by trying to cut all future financial ties.

Rather than default, the proper way for a nation to deal with a debt problem is to devalue its currency.  What this means is that their currency is worth less vs other currencies(like U.S. dollars vs Mexican Peso)  Either "naturally" by letting the currency exchanges happen naturally(this is what most countries do) or they do it explicitly if they have a "fixed exchange".  (Few countries have a "fixed exchange" where they declare something like they'll trade 7 lira for 1 American dollar or .01 oz of gold, but if they do and they have a debt\deficit issue, the can just decrease the exchange)

Unfortunately, Greece cannot do that.  Greece doesn't control their own currency the way other nations do.  They use the Euro.  Therefore, bankruptcy or accepting the terms of their new lender masters(IMF, World Bank, and E.U.) are their only options.  And since 5 years of being at their mercy hasn't resolved the issue, you can now understand why they chose default.  With 25% unemployment, a welfare state that has been gutted in 5 years, and taxes higher than ever, what choice did they have?

Well, that isn't completely true. They have another choice.  They can dump the Euro and go back to the Drachma.  All this strife never would've happened if they still used the Drachma.  Sure, they still may have suffered some economic consequences, but not to the degree that we have seen.  Even if one were to concede that Greek budget deficits were too high, the only consequence would've been the Drachma was worth less in the world.  That would've meant that all Greek's were poorer, sure (in other words... ALL citizens would've shared a small dip in wealth instead of just the poor not being able to find a job).  However it wouldn't have caused 25% unemployment for the next 5 years.  It also would've meant that Greece suddenly became an attractive place for a business to make goods for export.  If that had happened, instead of hearing lies about lazy-ass Greeks living beyond their means, we might instead be hearing about the Greek miracle of how Greece came out of the 2009 recession to become an industrial power house of Europe.

This could be the ultimate way out for Greece.  In fact, some insiders have noted that if the Greece government started giving out IOUs for its debts, and accepted them back for payment, the IOUs could become a defacto new currency.

For the sake of the people of Greece I sure hope they choose a route that does something like dumping the Euro.  Unfortunately, many people in Greece and its government don't realize the Euro is causing their trouble and want to keep it.  For those who may be inclined to agree, I have to ask, is 5 years of 25% unemployment worth the convenience of a single European currency?

The Comical History of Capitalism(the word)

This is not about capitalism, the theorized socio-economic system of production.  This is about the word “capitalism” itself.  The term, “capitalism” has been used, abused, reborn, and re-mutilated so many times that if one were to use the term, you have to immediately stop and define what you mean by “capitalism”. Why is that?  There aren’t multiple definitions of mercantilism or feudalism.  So what happened to “capitalism”? To find out, follow me through the comical history of “capitalism”, the word.

In the Beginning...

"Capitalism" came into focus somewhere around the early to mid 18th century.  But nobody called it "capitalism" at the time.   The term "capitalism" didn't appear until about a 100 years later when it was first coined by socialists in the mid 19th century as a pejorative for the current state of the world.  This was when the term capitalism was first used to describe a socio-political-economic system.  (there are a few uses of the term pre-1850.  But they were all used as synonyms for commerce or a capitalist.  And was not widely used, and, therefore I think can be ignored)  So the first comical thing to note about the term, "capitalism" is that the history of the word is tied to socialism and socialist thought, and NOT to the system it describes.

What about Marx?

Here's another funny thing about “capitalism”.  Despite what most people think, Karl Marx, the most infamous socialist, neither coined the term nor popularized it.  The term "capitalism" was coined by Pierre-Joseph Proudhon,  A French individualist socialist(more commonly referred to today as an anarchist).   You will not find the term anywhere in The Communist Manifesto.  Later, when Marx and his partner Engels wrote Das Kapital, they would describe the situation as "the capitalist mode of production".  Engels may have used "capitalism" later in life, but neither he nor Marx popularized the term.

It wasn't until the turn of the century that it was made clear that "capitalism" was the word to describe what socialists opposed.  Werner Sombart's "Der Moderne  Kapitalismus" in 1902 exploded the term's popularity both inside and outside of socialist circles.  Or as respected historian Fernand Braudel puts it in his book Civilization and Capitalism:

In fact, it was not until the beginning of this century that it fully burst upon political debate as the natural opposite of socialism.  It was to be launched in academic circles by Werner Sombart's explosive book Der moderne Kapitalismus.  Not unnaturally, this word which Marx never used was incorporated into the Marxist model, so much so that the terms slavery, feudalism and capitalism are commonly used to refer to the three major stages of development defined by the author of Capital.

The term must have stuck because two years later Max Weber published his famous tome, "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism" which is "the fourth most important sociological book of the 20th century".

So, to be clear on why I find this so damn funny... At the beginning of the 20th century, "capitalism" became a "marxist" term that was neither coined nor popularized by Karl Marx!

Capitalism is a good thing now?

Now fast forward 60 years.  It's 1962 and at this point, The terms “capitalism” and “capitalist” had been pejoratives and a negative descriptions used by socialists for 100 years.  Up until this point, intellectuals that were opposed to socialism described themselves as being in favor of liberalism(especially the classical kind) and not "capitalism".  Then, Milton Friedman publishes a book called Capitalism and Freedom in 1962.  And then 4 years later, Ayn Rand comes out with her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.  In these books, these (now famous) authors described "capitalism" in glowing terms and came out FOR it.

Wait a minute!  (insert record scratch sound)  What the F*!)K Just Happened???  The 50s and early 60s mark when many intellectuals started openly using the term "capitalism" as the term for their ideal system instead of "liberal", "free market", "Laissez faire", or "free enterprise".  I've checked as many places I can think, but it just didn't happen until that time.

The Foundation for Economic Education was created in 1946 to promote free markets.  And no where in their founding 14 principals was the term capitalism.

The American Enterprise Institute founded in 1943 didn't defend "capitalism", it defended "competitive, free-enterprise".

The Founding article in William Buckley's conservative National Review mentions "capitalism" only in relation to socialism.  Among the magazine's "convictions", it only states "The competitive price system" and no mention of "capitalism".

Who can I blame for this???

Now we come to the person whom I blame for this whole mess:  Ludwig von Mises.  At the time, he was a semi-known Austrian economist who was very much in favor of "liberalism" and very much against socialism.  However, in his writings, he adopted the language of his socialist rivals.  In his 1922 book titled "Socialism", he acknowledged that the term "Capitalism" was a "political word".  He stated:

The terms "Capitalism" and "Capitalistic Production" are political catchwords. They were invented by socialists, not to extend knowledge, but to carp, to criticize, to condemn. Today, they have only to be uttered to conjure up a picture of the relentless exploitation of wage-slaves by the pitiless rich. They are scarcely ever used save to imply a disease in the body-politic. From a scientific point of view, they are so obscure and ambiguous that they have no value whatever. Their users agree only in this, that they indicate the characteristics of the modern economic system. But wherein these characteristics consist is always a matter of dispute. Their use, therefore, is entirely pernicious, and the proposal to extrude them altogether from economic terminology, and to leave them to the matadors of popular agitation, deserves serious consideration.

Despite that, Mises attempted to "appropriate the word for his own purposes".  After acknowledging this, 2 paragraphs later, he tries to justify the use of the term "capitalism" to describe the liberal system that he favored:

If the term capitalism is used to designate an economic system in which production is governed by capital calculations, it acquires a special significance for defining economic activity. Understood thus, it is by no means misleading to speak of Capitalism and capitalistic methods of production, and expressions such as the capitalistic spirit and the anti-capitalistic disposition acquire a rigidly circumscribed connotation. Capitalism is better suited to be the antithesis of Socialism than Individualism, which is often used in this way.

As far as I can tell, this 1922 book was the beginning of the shift in the meaning of the term Capitalism.

So then, what is the connection between Mises and future "capitalism" supporters?  Ludwig von Mises was Fredrich Hayek's teacher in Austria.  The one that converted him from socialism to "liberalism".  Hayek would later found a social club called the Mont Pelerin society in 1947 for free market economists.  At the founding meeting was Hayek, Mises, and... Milton Friedman, the aforementioned author of "Capitalism and Freedom".  I don't think it is a stretch to say that Mises attempts to redefine capitalism as a positive would've rubbed off on the younger economists.

In fact, before founding the society, Hayek published the book "The Road To Serfdom" where he did pretty much the same thing as his teacher did in "Socialism".  He notes that the term conceals the truth, but then later redefines the term "capitalism" and then speaks approvingly of it.  On page 89 of the book he wrote

Though the terms "capitalism" and "socialism" are still generally used to describe the past and the future forms of society, they conceal rather than elucidate the nature of the transition through which we are passing.

And then by page 109 he redefines capitalism and praises it as the only way democracy can thrive:

It is now often said that democracy will not tolerate "capitalism".  If "capitalism" means here a competitive system based on free disposal over private property, it is far more important to realize that only within this system is democracy possible.

Another early and obscure attempt to redefine capitalism - and then come out in favor of it- was by Political Philosopher Frank Chodorov.  In October of 1945 he wrote an article titled "Let's Try Capitalism".  Whether his attempt to redefine capitalism was his own, or influenced by Mises, I cannot say for certain.  But being that he was very much active in the "free market liberalism" movement in New York for years, and that Ludwig von Mises had been teaching at NYU for 5 years while promoting free markets, it's not hard to fathom that they may have run into each other and exchanged ideas by 1945.  In fact, based on the fact that both men knew Murray Rothbard(Another "free market" advocate) and Milton Friedman, it is hard to imagine that they didn't at least know each other.

Backlash, and Backlash to the Backlash

So after the "free market" advocates tried to commandeer the word for their own purposes, you can imagine that there was a backlash.  But the backlash wasn't from state socialists.  It came from anarchists and other "free market" advocates!

In 1972 Murray Rothbard noted the absurdity of trying to commandeer the term "capitalism" as a description of what he advocated for.  By 1972 , Murray Rothbard notes in an essay that there are multiple definitions of "capitalism".  He tries to split the definition in two to describe two very different concepts, "free-market capitalism" and "state capitalism".  Naturally he is in favor of one and against the other.

From the very first we run into grave problems with the term "capitalism." When we realize that the word was coined by capitalism's most famous enemy, Karl Marx, it is not surprising that a neutral or a pro-"capitalist" analyst might find the term lacking in precision. For capitalism tends to be a catchall, a portmanteau concept that Marxists apply to virtually every society on the face of the globe, with the exception of a few possible "feudalist" countries and the Communist nations (although, of course, the Chinese consider Yugoslavia and Russia "capitalist," while many Trotskyites would include China as well). Marxists, for example, consider India as a "capitalist" country, but India, hagridden by a vast and monstrous network of restrictions, castes, state regulations, and monopoly privileges is about as far from free-market capitalism as can be imagined
If we are to keep the term "capitalism" at all, then, we must distinguish between "free-market capitalism" on the one hand, and "state capitalism" on the other. The two are as different as day and night in their nature and consequences.

Other, more modern writers have continued the backlash.  Sheldon Richman argues that libertarians should use "capitalism" as the description of what they oppose.

 We are a group of libertarians who understand that historically the word "capitalism" has meant, not the free market, but crony capitalism -- that is, collusion between business and State at the expense of consumers/workers. Thus we refuse to use the word "capitalism" to describe what we favor: individual liberty in all respects and free, competitive markets. We believe that what we have today IS capitalism -- and we oppose it.

Other modern free marketers have noted the same thing.  And now, of course, there is a backlash against this backlash.  The suggestion of letting "capitalism" return to it's original meaning, is rejected because(among other reasons), we shouldn't let the definition of words change.  I shit you not:

As Sheldon admits in his talk, however, changing words is like changing currencies.  If they're already widely accepted, you need a really good reason to abandon them.  Awkward etymology notwithstanding, I think the concepts of capitalism and socialism are good enough to keep using.

Conclusion

So now you know why it is so damn hard to talk about "capitalism".  And now, before one can even debate the merits of "capitalism", one has to define what they mean by "capitalism".  Do they mean the system of exploitation as defined by Proudhon or Marx(who both defined it differently)?  Or do they mean "a competitive system based on free disposal over private property"?  Or something else?  My recommendation is to never use the term.  If one has to define a word every time one uses it, then it's not a useful word.

If you enjoyed this article, let me know.  If there is interest I can attempt a similar article on the terms "socialism", "liberalism", "fascism", and probably even "keynesian".  Also, if you ever an article by an influential person from before 1922 describing "capitalism" as a good thing, please let me know.  I would be interested if there is another or a different person we can blame for this mess.

Marvel Digital Comics Unlimited App is Still Terrible

MDCU App Crashes Again

The Android Phone App for accessing Marvel's Digital Comics Unlimited service is still awful as of June 2014.  Marvel seems to come out with new updates all the time, and I just wanted to warn people who are considering the app.

For those who haven't heard, Marvel Digital Comic Unlimited (MDCU), is a Netflix-like subscription service, but for comic books.  The company that brought us Spiderman, X-men, and 100s of other comics is offering their fans access to over 15,000 comic archive(and growing) for a low monthly price.  The cost is about the equivalent of 2 comics a month.  It's a great idea, and for people like me who have never been into comics, it gives me a chance to try lots of comics or read the large history of Marvel Super-Hero history.

Like Netflix, Marvel is understandably concerned people will take their streaming content, save it, and spread it and destroy their business model.  So, they create custom, encrypted apps that alone can access the MDCU content.  The problem is that, the app on android is so fucking terrible.  On every android phone I've tried it, and every update of the app, the usability ranges from frustrating and completely unusable.

Until this last April, my MDCU subscription was a complete waste of money.  When I first got the service, the app slightly worked for me for a couple months, but then an update came by and made it unusable.  I couldn't even view a comic.  I must have contacted support 4 or 5 times trying to get help.  The only response I got was "we know, we're working on it".  I got no response when I asked for more details or asked for my account to be temporarily suspended\escrowed until they got their act together.

I was excited  when I found a new app update as I was hoping to actually make it work.  Fortunately, the app is now usable, but still damned frustrating.  When I start it up, half the time my login credentials are lost, but then suddenly show up when I change screens.  When downloading comics to view later, the whole app freezes up.  And When I close the app and come back, I'll get a message that it crashed  and for about 5 minutes, really weird stuff happens.  Also, when displaying my comics that I place in my library, half the information isn't displayed unless I do a "refresh", but as soon as I leave the screen it all disappears again.

I am not the only person to complain.  Marvel forums and other blogs\forums around the internet are full of people complaining about it as well.

I will say that the Website interface has worked pretty well.  However, I enjoy reading on my smart phone or tablet.  They are easier to hold than a laptop.  Also my phone is more portable and I always have it with me if I'm suddenly in a "waiting" situation like at a Doctor's office or DMV line.  Chances are you won't have your laptop with you, but will have a phone.  That's why I think the phone\table App is important to work and is the real value to the service.

All that being said, I still think the service is a pretty good deal.  I'm currently trying(with all the frustrations) to work my way through Marvel's vast super hero history starting with old comics starting in 1961.  However, I just wanted to warn future potential customers that are planning on purchasing MDCU:  Be prepared for the Android Phone App to be a frustrating experience and maybe even unusable.