Libertarian rhetoric kills health care reform

[IcarusAngel]

Capitalist "tea party" rhetoric has once again stopped progressive reform in the senate. This is the belief that 'regulating' corporations, who regulate society, is somehow unjustified for a variety of reasons.

no medicare expansion, no public option.

The benefit to the right is two-fold: Corporations can continue to control society to an even greater extent, making workers more likely to be willing to submit themselves to slavery, and many more low income people, the most likely "democratic" voters, will continue dying.

"we're dying slowly."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/13/813514/-Were-dying-slowly,-a-working-American-pleads-for-healthcarevideos-and-action

Again it seems the Libertarians have bested the left and the unions again.

[Havet]

What I don't understand is how you even imagined that this kind of reformism had the slightest chance of success.

[Bud Struggle]

What I don't understand is how you even imagined that this kind of reformism had the slightest chance of success.

hayen's right. This was Opera not politics. Le's see what actually gets past--nothing and with lots of people taking credit for the Great Success of the Healthcare Bill.

Opera, Klingon Opera.

[IcarusAngel]

The only reason it failed is because of people like you two who continue to promote capitalist lies about how "efficient" the free-market is.

My grandpa has better health care than I do. He has medicare and care for being a WW II vet, VA care. I took him to the hospital a few days ago and they covered nearly all of it, whereas I cannot go to the hospital. Medicare, medicaid, and the VA take care of roughly the same amount of people that private insurance does and do a better job of it. Keep in mind that they take care of people who are likely to be sicker than the average population in the first place (older, poorer, etc.) and still do a better job at it.

The public option was originally a good plan. It would have forced insurance companies to compete, and they know they couldn't have competed against the government and even admitted that if the govt. wasn't there, they'll continue to raise prices.

You guys got what you wanted; thousands of more low-income workers dead and millions of more workers who will continue to be humiliated by the free-market system.

Now all that's going to happen is that the health care system will be treated like car insurance; people will be forced into capitalist markets.

I hate to say it but maybe after a few years of private insurance hell (like car insurance), people will finally start to lobby effectively for the pro-health care option.

The info was out there: government is better than the market at nearly everything (tha's how bad the markets) but the 'Moderate dems' were afraid of losing elections, so we now we have even more corporatist 'care.'

[Skooma Addict]

no medicare expansion, no public option.


Finally some good news after hours spent studying for business exams.

[IcarusAngel]

Finally some good news after hours spent studying for business exams.

lol. So you're a business major? It figures you'd be in the idiot department of any University.

[Bud Struggle]

The only reason it failed is because of people like you two who continue to promote capitalist lies about how "efficient" the free-market is. Not me personally--I am for it without the abortion option.


My grandpa has better health care than I do. He has medicare and care for being a WW II vet, VA care. I took him to the hospital a few days ago and they covered nearly all of it, whereas I cannot go to the hospital. Medicare, medicaid, and the VA take care of roughly the same amount of people that private insurance does and do a better job of it. Keep in mind that they take care of people who are likely to be sicker than the average population in the first place (older, poorer, etc.) and still do a better job at it. Agreed. I did the same with my father-in-law. A wonderful system. They did about $150,000 of work on an 89 year old guy to keep him alve. I appreciate it.


The info was out there: government is better than the market at nearly everything (that's how bad the markets) but the 'Moderate dems' were afraid of losing elections, so we now we have even more corporatist 'care.'

The problem is that both the public and the private systems suck. We don't need a Socialist Revolution--we need a Capitalist Revolution.

[Skooma Addict]

lol. So you're a business major? It figures you'd be in the idiot department of any University.

Yes I am a business major. I can make the most money that way.

[Robert]

What I don't understand is how you even imagined that this kind of reformism had the slightest chance of success. The slightest chance? Democrats control our government. They have passed lots of social welfare and civil rights reforms in the past, especially under President Johnson.

Icarus, I get your point about veterans.

I'm also sorry you don't have health insurance, sincerely, but if this isn't too personal, is there a specific medicine or med procedure that you cannot get because you don't have insurance or because your income is too low? Maybe Texas is an anomaly, but I can't tell you how many indigent persons, including undocumented aliens, get extended ICU, pre-natal care, OB-gyn, dental, chemotherapy, and even dialysis in our county hospitals.

[rednordman]

We don't need a Socialist Revolution--we need a Capitalist Revolution.:confused:eh?

[Drace]

The problem is that both the public and the private systems suck. We don't need a Socialist Revolution--we need a Capitalist Revolution.

Wtf is a capitalist revolution? 19th century England? You didn't respond to my other post btw, in the "Russia's support for Right Wing Parties"


Yes I am a business major. I can make the most money that way. You should of taken the imagination class so you can whip out those business ideas and sell em for $50 mill a pop.

[Havet]

The only reason it failed is because of people like you two who continue to promote capitalist lies about how "efficient" the free-market is.

My grandpa has better health care than I do. He has medicare and care for being a WW II vet, VA care. I took him to the hospital a few days ago and they covered nearly all of it, whereas I cannot go to the hospital. Medicare, medicaid, and the VA take care of roughly the same amount of people that private insurance does and do a better job of it. Keep in mind that they take care of people who are likely to be sicker than the average population in the first place (older, poorer, etc.) and still do a better job at it.

The public option was originally a good plan. It would have forced insurance companies to compete, and they know they couldn't have competed against the government and even admitted that if the govt. wasn't there, they'll continue to raise prices.

You guys got what you wanted; thousands of more low-income workers dead and millions of more workers who will continue to be humiliated by the free-market system.

Now all that's going to happen is that the health care system will be treated like car insurance; people will be forced into capitalist markets.

I hate to say it but maybe after a few years of private insurance hell (like car insurance), people will finally start to lobby effectively for the pro-health care option.

The info was out there: government is better than the market at nearly everything (tha's how bad the markets) but the 'Moderate dems' were afraid of losing elections, so we now we have even more corporatist 'care.'

You'd have sold me if you proposed the creation of some sort of alternative institution. But reformism is a waste of time, as you have discovered. And no matter what blames you believe lie on me, it was you who tricked yourself from the beginning.





Oh, and we don't have a free-market.

[rednordman]

Finally some good news after hours spent studying for business exams.How is this good news?, the current system in USA sounds wank m8. It makes me glad to be in the UK and have the quasi-privatised NHS. Yes its got problems because it refuses to be an actual nationalised service, and is half and half. But at least it has a public foundation, and is accessible to everyone.

[9]

^this business exams part is how.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes I am a business major. I can make the most money that way.

Not to be on your case. But MBA's are for people that work for people that know how to make money.

Movers and shakers for the most part never study business--it clouds the mind learning about how things should be done.

A good businessman can alway hire MBAs to straighten out the mess he's made.

[IcarusAngel]

How is this good news?, the current system in USA sounds wank m8.

It is. Nearly all of my friends from high school managed to get out of the stinkin' US. They're all in Sweden, New Zealand, etc., although I think one came back recently.

Here in America the health care is absolutely atrocious, as the videos above show.

You have people dying in waiting rooms. One guy was dead for over an hour. This is the success of "market econoimcs."


I'm also sorry you don't have health insurance, sincerely, but if this isn't too personal, is there a specific medicine or med procedure that you cannot get because you don't have insurance or because your income is too low? Maybe Texas is an anomaly, but I can't tell you how many indigent persons, including undocumented aliens, get extended ICU, pre-natal care, OB-gyn, dental, chemotherapy, and even dialysis in our county hospitals.

I didn't mean to really personalize it. I just wanted to make the point about how my grandpa receives good care from the government.

I'm fine, and I could get health insurance, but the health insurance plans available to me are scams and I'm not sick at the monent, so any thing I need, like a dentist, I pay for it straight up. Furthermore, as shown at the link they aren't always there when you need them.

My job is close and I don't travel far so I see it as a 50 50 type of a thing anyway. I could even be better without health insurance.

However, obviously some people are dying even with 'health insurance' who shouldn't be. That is what I'm worried about.



Agreed. I did the same with my father-in-law. A wonderful system. They did about $150,000 of work on an 89 year old guy to keep him alve. I appreciate it.


That's good. I hope he had a good life.

I'm the only one who would stay with my grandpa. I actually get some flak for taking care of him, even though things could have been far easier on me. Then again, some people think I'm doing a wondeful thing including the VA guy who came and analyzed the situation to give us a stipend. My grandma did have to go into the homes (one of the best ones in the valley) and doesn't really receive the best care anyway.

Anyway, in the US, there is a huge emphasis to "be on your own" as soon as possible. And I always try and do the opposite of capitalist rhetoric, so I live with my grandpa and take care of him, and majored in something that actually takes more than a pulse to actually pass the courses.

All of his brothers (also all veterans and decorated) were put into a home a little too soon, and have all passed away.


Not to be on your case. But MBA's are for people that work for people that know how to make money.

Not only that but computer science majors, economics majors, mathematics and actuary majors, etc., make more money than business majors in the first place.

Perhaps if you "only" have a bachelor's in biology or something, you won't make money, but at least you'll have learned something.

One of my acquaintances from high school started a business after he earned his degree in like web programming from Utah State (or somewhere). It's a very successful business, and I think the most popular of its kind in utah.

I plan to start my own business someday because that's actually a good way for the working class to survive if they can make it. I've been a union worker etc. and will always consider myself "working class" etc., but I know how I can make some money without working for someone else.

[IcarusAngel]

You'd have sold me if you proposed the creation of some sort of alternative institution. But reformism is a waste of time, as you have discovered. And no matter what blames you believe lie on me, it was you who tricked yourself from the beginning.

Yes, I guess I was 'tricked' for thinking that after another huge capitalist recession that people would actually crave FDR style 'reforms' in order to save lies, 'reforms' that have created far better systems in Europe than the American health care fiasco.

Little did I know how powerful Libertarian rhetoric can be even after another capitalist decline. I should have known better.

It's not over yet. Obama can still engage in price fixing and other measures to keep costs down.


Btw... Why in god's name would people ever create a "Revolution" to install "free-markets," "free-markets" which already existed during the Gilded Age and which were proven to be failures, and which have again and again proven to not work throughout America's "dregulation periods."

"Let's go backwards in time" is the "capitalist revolution" that you supposedly favor. I, personally, would fight against any revolution trying to install a free-market dictatorship, even if I was labeled a 'rightist.' I don't want to go back to failed ideologies that should be (and basically are) in the dustbin of history.

The only person calling for your style of "revolution" is you.

[Skooma Addict]

Not to be on your case. But MBA's are for people that work for people that know how to make money.

Movers and shakers for the most part never study business--it clouds the mind learning about how things should be done.

A good businessman can alway hire MBAs to straighten out the mess he's made.

That is a completely unjustified generalization. But I don't even plan on getting an MBA anyways.

[Robert]

I'm the only one who would stay with my grandpa

You are an amazing individual.

I want to keep talking about all this later, but I honestly don't think you are going to find, after the dust clears, that it was Libertarian free market impulses that killed the public option. It was two related things: one is existing federal debt and a concern that the government, no, cannot do everything better than the markets in every industry (if it did, there would be no UPS or FedEx).

Second, you have too many people that are either happy with their insurance (like me) or concerned that a government plan will be worse.

They are included among the people that the "gutless" Democrats up for re-election have to listen to. That is part of their job.

[Skooma Addict]

Btw... Why in god's name would people ever create a "Revolution" to install "free-markets," "free-markets" which already existed during the Gilded Age and which were proven to be failures, and which have again and again proven to not work throughout America's "dregulation periods."Please point out some examples. I can use the Anarchists in Spain as an example of how attempting to establish anarchism and abolish capitalism is not possible (on a wide scale).



"Let's go backwards in time" is the "capitalist revolution" that you supposedly favor. I, personally, would fight against any revolution trying to install a free-market dictatorship, even if I was labeled a 'rightist.' I don't want to go back to failed ideologies that should be (and basically are) in the dustbin of history.Capitalism is not in the dustbin of history.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Finally some good news after hours spent studying for business exams.

Yes I am a business major. I can make the most money that way.
Further evidence that libertarians tend to be sociopaths.

[Bud Struggle]

That is a completely unjustified generalization. But I don't even plan on getting an MBA anyways.

I've seen it happen plenty of times--I have no stats, but I'm a Classics major with minor and MA in Philosophy.

[Skooma Addict]

Further evidence that libertarians tend to be sociopaths.

Further evidence that socialists are delusional.


I've seen it happen plenty of times--I have no stats, but I'm a Classics major with minor and MA in Philosophy.

I am sure it has happened plenty of times. I do not deny that.

[Havet]

Yes, I guess I was 'tricked' for thinking that after another huge capitalist recession that people would actually crave FDR style 'reforms' in order to save lies, 'reforms' that have created far better systems in Europe than the American health care fiasco.

Little did I know how powerful Libertarian rhetoric can be even after another capitalist decline. I should have known better.

It's not over yet. Obama can still engage in price fixing and other measures to keep costs down.

I don't think it was libertarian rethoric that prevented this, more like conservative rethoric (since libertarians are practically not represented in congress).

Sure, it's not over yet, i'm just sayin' that don't get your hopes up. You would be helping much more by organizing and creating healthcare cooperatives than by creating threads "hoping" that "our masters" give us a bit more security to contrast the one they had already taken away (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1616041&postcount=1).



Btw... Why in god's name would people ever create a "Revolution" to install "free-markets," "free-markets" which already existed during the Gilded Age and which were proven to be failures, and which have again and again proven to not work throughout America's "dregulation periods."

"Let's go backwards in time" is the "capitalist revolution" that you supposedly favor. I, personally, would fight against any revolution trying to install a free-market dictatorship, even if I was labeled a 'rightist.' I don't want to go back to failed ideologies that should be (and basically are) in the dustbin of history.

The only person calling for your style of "revolution" is you.

Incidentally, the gilded age saw one of the greatest rise in Unions and worker organization throughout all America (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_age#Labor_unions).

If you portray the Gilded Age as bad i'll respond that you don't care about workers and wish worker unions to be abolished

See? I can make strawmans too :)

[rednordman]

Capitalism is not in the dustbin of history.To be fair, I do believe that the mad risk taking, and 'greed is good' type of capitalism very much is. I think the only real hope for the market is like a capitalism 'with a human face' or 'sensible and fair' now. Otherwise, the same things will happen over and over again, all the way until Marx's prediction is actually proved correct. Some may argue that he has already been proved right, but imo global economic downturn is nothing compared to what could end up happening if people decide to go on the way they did before.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't think it was libertarian rethoric that prevented this, more like conservative rethoric (since libertarians are practically not represented in congress).

Libertarian/Capitalist rhetoric has influenced the Republican Party. There was a time that they were even more progressive than the Democrats. Teddy Roosevelt even ran as a progressive at one point.


Sure, it's not over yet, i'm just sayin' that don't get your hopes up. You would be helping much more by organizing and creating healthcare cooperatives than by creating threads "hoping" that "our masters" give us a bit more security to contrast the one they had already taken away (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1616041&postcount=1).

Cooperatives can't do anything to solve as big of crisis as health care, just like they can't fight global warming, since the system is so much in favor of large corporations.

And actually a public run health care system eliminates the need for 'corporations' in the health care system altogether.




Incidentally, the gilded age saw one of the greatest rise in Unions and worker organization throughout all America (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilded_age#Labor_unions).

If you portray the Gilded Age as bad i'll respond that you don't care about workers and wish worker unions to be abolished

See? I can make strawmans too :)


That isn't a straw man. It's not just a nonsensical argument. My argument also wasn't a "straw man" - it was stating the fact that no one supports a return to a free-market dictatorship (discounting a few loons on the internet).

In today's America corporations are so powerful that unions are not large enough to joust with such big institutions; the only person large enough to fight the corporations is the government.

So your statement is a false analogy.

Furthermore, in those days corporations were just being defined and there was some discrepency back then over who could control resources. And the workers were fighting to get themselves out of dire poverty created by capitalism.

What the "unions" helped to do was push through the reforms that finally came about under FDR, hence, those type of unions were no longer needed (and today most of them are useless in America, promoting conservative values and nationalism).

As usual you're not making any sense.

[IcarusAngel]

To be fair, I do believe that the mad risk taking, and 'greed is good' type of capitalism very much is.

The mad risk corporatism is still prevalent, the free-market ideology has only been used to justify the corporate greed, it's not really in practice.

The biggest threat to capitalism is social democracy as it is the only one that has curtailed capitalism in the Western world to some extent.


I think the only real hope for the market is like a capitalism 'with a human face' or 'sensible and fair' now. Otherwise, the same things will happen over and over again, all the way until Marx's prediction is actually proved correct. Some may argue that he has already been proved right, but imo global economic downturn is nothing compared to what could end up happening if people decide to go on the way they did before.

Yes.

With hope capitalism can be eliminated though.

[Skooma Addict]

That isn't a straw man. It's not just a nonsensical argument. My argument also wasn't a "straw man" - it was stating the fact that no one supports a return to a free-market dictatorship (discounting a few loons on the internet).

I am unaware of anyone who supports a free market dictatorship. Although that is probably because I do not know what a free market dictatorship is. Can you provide a definition?

[IcarusAngel]

You're missing the point. There is no 'movement,' either historically or intellectually, to replace capitalist social-democracy with an even worse form of capitalism through revolution by the working class.

Libertarian "left" members advocated "counter economics" - i.e., black and free-markets that are far, far worse than current capitalist markets. Black markets have improved conditions not once in history, although they have made conditions worse. In fact, black markets have been so bad that the government has had to legalize certain kinds of trading and the trading of certain items based soley on the crime/scandals/mob rule of black markets.

The only true 'anti-market' alternatives in society are left ones: University and scientific research, cooperative movements (who often ask for the support of the state and want the same regulations for themselves as they do for other companies), or other things that work "around" the market, not within the market.

Find me the movement of intellectuals - not idiots on the internet - who've called for replacing capitalism with black markets and 'counter economics.' It doesn't exist.

[Skooma Addict]

You're missing the point. There is no 'movement,' either historically or intellectually, to replace capitalist social-democracy with an even worse form of capitalism through revolution by the working class.

Libertarian "left" members advocated "counter economics" - i.e., black and free-markets that are far, far worse than current capitalist markets. Black markets have improved conditions not once in history, although they have made conditions worse. In fact, black markets have been so bad that the government has had to legalize certain kinds of trading and the trading of certain items based soley on the crime/scandals/mob rule of black markets.

The only true 'anti-market' alternatives in society are left ones: University and scientific research, cooperative movements (who often ask for the support of the state and want the same regulations for themselves as they do for other companies), or other things that work "around" the market, not within the market.

Find me the movement of intellectuals - not idiots on the internet - who've called for replacing capitalism with black markets and 'counter economics.' It doesn't exist.

I don't think I really missed any point. I just wanted you to provide me with a definition.

As for a movement of intellectuals, I can give you some names that want completely free markets if that is what you meat. I am not really familiar with, nor do I care about "counter economics."

[IcarusAngel]

Again you ignored the point. People advocate free-markets based on absolutist laws that they want the govt to enforce (or other corporations if you're an anarcho-capitalist), not through 'revolution.' So it's stupid to talk about a revolution through a free-market, nobody is going to favor it and there have been no movements towards such a 'revolution.'

Free-markets are despotic. The free-market ideology attempts to force people to accept the market definition of property without concern for the feelings of the public obtained through democratic means. Hence, why all free-markets are or lead to dictatorships, oligarchies, etc.

The left right line could be instead the "despotism" versus "democracy" line. So on the left you have theories that place power in the hands of the people, and the right you have theories that place power in the hands of corporations or other institutions. Your ideas are despotic. Leftist ideas are democratic, including anarchism, which is why hayenmill is not an anarchist (See FAQ in my signature).

[Skooma Addict]

I didn't miss a point. I just asked for a definition. Most people who favor a free market do not want some kind of revolution like Socialists do. So that is probably why you think there is no movement. As for anarchism, as far as I am concerned it just means "no government." So for example, the CNT anarcho-statists in Spain were not really anarchists. Or at least they didn't create an anarchist society.

[IcarusAngel]

Anarchism means 'no rulers' not 'no government.' A government is a ruler. A corporation is a ruler, based on certain laws, and usually receives help from the government.

You are not an anarchist, or a leftist, and are clearly ignorant of political theory.

[Skooma Addict]

Anarchism means 'no rulers' not 'no government.' A government is a ruler. A corporation is a ruler, based on certain laws, and usually receives help from the government.

I don't think a corporation is a ruler. But since a governemnt is required to eliminate capitalism, it seems that if we are using your definition, then anarchism is impossible. For I assume you believe capitalists are rulers? You need a state to eliminate capitalism. A perfect example are the CNT anarcho-statists.



You are not an anarchist, or a leftist, and are clearly ignorant of political theory.

I am definitely not a leftist. I do not hold on to dogmatic leftist values such as egalitarianism. I am not ignorant of political theory. I actually unfortunately took a political science class. That won't happen again.

[Plagueround]

I didn't miss a point. I just asked for a definition. Most people who favor a free market do not want some kind of revolution like Socialists do.

That's because they're usually quite content to use our current system of subsidies and government intervention to make themselves rich, then denounce said systems to appear blameless and maintain their haughty "told you so" rhetoric.

[Skooma Addict]

That's because they're usually quite content to use our current system of subsidies and government intervention to make themselves rich, then denounce said systems to appear blameless and maintain their haughty "told you so" rhetoric.

Well the people I was referring to are not really getting rich by subsidies. They are academics, just like there are leftist academics.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes, political theory is a little too difficult for someone who is a 'business major,' i.e. someone too stupid to hit "F1" on their keyboard to learn "business computing" and someone too stupid to get a book on algebra to learn "business math."

In political theory, anarchism would be achieved through cooperatives, which existed during the spanish revolution on the large scale and existed in the Irsaeli Kibbutzim. They were able to destroy capitalism. Other non-hierarchical insitutions would aslo be established.

And it's the other way around; capitalism comes from a mixture of statist ideologies, such as feudalism, and state reforms, such as the judicial reforms of the ninteenth century. Capitalism requires a state, so eliminating the state would be a good way to eliminate capitalism.

[IcarusAngel]

Well the people I was referring to are not really getting rich by subsidies. They are academics, just like there are leftist academics.

Universities are also subsidized, dumb ass.

In fact, economics is one of the few disciplines that receives millions of dollars in subsidies but yet does not produce any useful output.

And you're not even in economics in the first place; you're in 'business school,' which usually an entirely different program, but which also receives subsidies.

[Plagueround]

Well the people I was referring to are not really getting rich by subsidies. They are academics, just like there are leftist academics.

Don't academics, left or right, make tons of money on the government subsidies that keep their schools running?

[Skooma Addict]

Yes, political theory is a little too difficult for someone who is a 'business major,' i.e. someone too stupid to hit "F1" on their keyboard to learn "business computing" and someone too stupid to get a book on algebra to learn "business math."


Lol. First of all political science is piss easy. Anyone can do well in a PSCI class. In fact, I am sure I know more about PSCI than you do. Are you familiar with the theories of Tilly, Herbst, Ingelheat(sp?), Huntington, Madison, or Carbollo(sp)? Then there is Modernization theory which is a complete joke. Your other business insults don't make sense. How would you even know if I got a book on algebra to learn business math or if I learned about business computing? wtf?


In political theory, anarchism would be achieved through cooperatives, which existed during the spanish revolution on the large scale and existed in the Irsaeli Kibbutzim. They were able to destroy capitalism. Other non-hierarchical insitutions would aslo be established.

Most of the supposed cooperatives that existed during the Spanish Revolution operated like capitalist firms. There were worker-capitalists. Also, the system that existed was by no means Anarchism. The CNT relied on conscription and their "Economic Councils" were governments in everything except name. Here is a very good essay by a very good economist.

http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm


And it's the other way around; capitalism comes from a mixture of statist ideologies, such as feudalism, and state reforms, such as the judicial reforms of the ninteenth century. Capitalism requires a state, so eliminating the state would be a good way to eliminate capitalism.

Except that isn't what happened in Spain. The firms left to themselves operated just like a capitalist firm would. So the CNT state intervened. You can go ahead and try to eliminate the State, but you will be disappointed with the outcome.

[IcarusAngel]

What's interesting is that 'private' Universities take in billions of dollars from the government year by year, and public ones often take less money, especially the lower-tiered ones. Economics seems to be a major that thrives because of its public subsidies.

I once had a Libertarian say to me that private Universities like Harvard are better because they take no money from the government.

[Skooma Addict]

Universities are also subsidized, dumb ass.

In fact, economics is one of the few disciplines that receives millions of dollars in subsidies but yet does not produce any useful output.

And you're not even in economics in the first place; you're in 'business school,' which usually an entirely different program, but which also receives subsidies.

They are subsidized no more than the countless leftist academics are. Also notice how they want to get rid of their own subsidies? So using subsidies as an excuse makes no sense.

[Plagueround]

They are subsidized no more than the countless leftist academics are. Also notice how they want to get rid of their own subsidies? So using subsidies as an excuse makes no sense.

Unless one was making the point that academics weren't getting rich by government subsidized universities. Which you were.

[Skooma Addict]

Unless one was making the point that academics weren't getting rich by government subsidized universities. Which you were.

I thought you were referring to rich businessmen who receive corporate subsidies. But whatever, I don't know why I am discussing this.

[IcarusAngel]

Lol. First of all political science is piss easy. Anyone can do well in a PSCI class. In fact, I am sure I know more about PSCI than you do. Are you familiar with the theories of Tilly, Herbst, Ingelheat(sp?), Huntington, Madison, or Carbollo(sp)? Then there is Modernization theory which is a complete joke. Your other business insults don't make sense. How would you even know if I got a book on algebra to learn business math or if I learned about business computing? wtf?

Actually political science majors tend to score better on the GMATs than business majors. And I'm familiar with some of the game theory that has come from political scientists that are also mathematicians such as Axelrod. The theories of many political scientists, like Ferguson and so on, are also far more complex than anything you would ever see coming out of business school.

Herbert Simon was also a political scientist who made great contributions to cognitive science and computer science, etc.

And yes I've read some of Samuel Huntington, Ferguson, Lindblom, and so on. The more difficult polisci material obviously appears in the upper-division courses and is far more statistics intensive than what most business majors ever take.

You seem to be able to convey even the most basic theories of the anarchists, who are often taught in a political ideologies course, and only repeat Misean nonsense without any evidence to back yourself up.



Most of the supposed cooperatives that existed during the Spanish Revolution operated like capitalist firms. There were worker-capitalists. Also, the system that existed was by no means Anarchism. The CNT relied on conscription and their "Economic Councils" were governments in everything except name. Here is a very good essay by a very good economist.

http://economics.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

That article has been refuted:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001532.html

Caplan has a proven record of misunderstanding anarchist political theory and history.



Except that isn't what happened in Spain. The firms left to themselves operated just like a capitalist firm would. So the CNT state intervened. You can go ahead and try to eliminate the State, but you will be disappointed with the outcome.

See above.

[Plagueround]

I thought you were referring to rich businessmen who receive corporate subsidies. But whatever, I don't know why I am discussing this.

Well, I brought it up because I don't think people realize how much of a role government plays in our lives and how much they really do subsidize, and how much libertarians, conservatives, and other free-marketeers downplay or hide the amount of money they simply wouldn't make if the government wasn't propping up their pet projects. I think it's the main reason they don't actually want social change or have a coherent plan for it; because in reality they strike me as comfortable in their current situation.

[IcarusAngel]

Capitalism is a statist system. Anarchists have a few systems they can point to at least there worked according to anarchist (non -capitalist) principles, such as the Israeli-kibbutzim and the Spanish revolution. There has never been a non-statist, capitalist system that has existed.

[Skooma Addict]

Actually political science majors tend to score better on the GMAs than business majors. And I'm familiar with some of the game theory that has come from political scientists that are also mathematicians such as Axelrod. The theories of many political scientists, like Ferguson and so on, are also far more complex than anything you would ever see coming out of business school.

And yes I've read some of Samuel Huntington, Ferguson, Lindblom, and so on. The more difficult polisci material obviously appears in the upper-division courses and is far more statistics intensive than what most business majors ever take.

You seem to be able to convey even the most basic theories of the anarchists, who are often taught in a political ideologies course, and only repeat Misean nonsense without any evidence to back yourself up.

Game theory is not very useful. Political science theories are definitely not more complex than the theories I can find in business. Look, political science is just plain easy. Maybe it wasn't easy for you, but it is easy for me. Statistics is used heavily in business, so I don't know what your talking about. Are you by the way familiar with any business theories? For example, what is the best way to engage in capital budgeting or maybe how to make the supply chain run smoothly while at the same time maintaining an adequate inventory. Hopefully you are at least familiar with Michael E Porter? I am not talking about a small business by the way.



That article has been refuted:
http://www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001532.html

Capitalism has a proven record of misunderstanding anarchist political theory and history.

Interesting. I will read that, but not right now. Can you yourself explain why I am mistaken in your own words?

[IcarusAngel]

Game theory is not very useful. Political science theories are definitely not more complex than the theories I can find in business. Look, political science is just plain easy. Maybe it wasn't easy for you, but it is easy for me. Statistics is used heavily in business, so I don't know what your talking about. Are you by the way familiar with any business theories? For example, what is the best way to engage in capital budgeting or maybe how to make the supply chain run smoothly while at the same time maintaining an adequate inventory. Hopefully you are at least familiar with Michael E Porter? I am not talking about a small business by the way.

lol. Political Science is often mathematically intensive such as those of Axelrod. I doubt you have the mathematical training to understand their 'theories.' There have been numerous historical political science, including Marx, who shape the way the government runs society, and in other fields as well. Herbert Simon influenced computer science as well and had an influence on the cognitive revolution. Studying political science, how people set up and define their political organizations, will always be needed.

You do not understand political science or its important and no one cares about your theory of business that anybody could learn in two seconds. It is about as important to society as the theories of a witch doctor.

You seem to have a vendetta against learning and intelligence, and only repeat debunked "austrian economics" to support your claims.

[Skooma Addict]

lol. Political Science is often mathematically intensive such as those of Axelrod. I doubt you have the mathematical training to understand their 'theories.' There have been numerous historical political science, including Marx, who shape the way the government runs society, and in other fields as well. Herbert Simon influenced computer science as well and had an influence on the cognitive revolution. Studying political science, how people set up and define their political organizations, will always be needed.

Maybe I have the training, maybe I don't. I don't know what it requires. The fact that their theories require math has nothing to do with their validity. In fact, the fact that they require intentensive math in something like political science makes me skeptical.


You do not understand political science or its important and no one cares about your theory of business that anybody could learn in two seconds. It is about as important to society as the theories of a witch doctor.

You seem to have a vendetta against learning and intelligence, and only repeat debunked "austrian economics" to support your claims.

Well you aren't familiar with any business theories apparently, so that might be the root of the problem. You must be confused because I don't know where you get the idea that I have a vendetta against learning.

[IcarusAngel]

Most business majors take nothing beyond college algebra. In fact, most business math classes are the dumb downed math classes that no one else but business majors take, like "business college algebra," or "business college calculus." If I asked you a question from calculus 3 there is no doubt you would not be able to answer it, whereas asking someone about some obscure business theory makes about as much sense as asking someone about Lindblom's "market as prison" theory.

I cite their workers because they have been influential not only to political science (which has had a huge influence on statistics in the first place and an influence on society) but because they've also found influence in other fields, such as biology. I know few, if any, business theories that have had such widespread application.

Furthermore, according to econ Phd., people who major in political science, art history, history, biology, and English lit tend to score hire on their GMAT than do business majors. You only continue to make them look bad, being an unbelievable idiot.

[Skooma Addict]

Most business majors take nothing beyond college algebra. In fact, most business math classes are the dumb downed math classes that no one else but business majors take, like "business college algebra," or "business college calculus." If I asked you a question from calculus 3 there is no doubt you would not be able to answer it, whereas asking someone about some obscure business theory makes about as much sense as asking someone about Lindblom's "market as prison" theory.Ok, well I have taken classes beyond college algebra. You keep going back to math for some reason. If you asked me a question from calc 3, I would be unable to answer. So What? I still have 4 more years of math I want to take. Again you refer to business theories when you apparently don't know a single one. All I can do is laugh.


I cite their workers because they have been influential not only to political science (which has had a huge influence on statistics in the first place and an influence on society) but because they've also found influence in other fields, such as biology. I know few, if any, business theories that have had such widespread application.You don't know any business theories though. But I am sure that business theories have mostly applied to business...


Furthermore, according to econ Phd., people who major in political science, art history, history, biology, and English lit tend to score hire on their GMAT than do business majors. You only continue to make them look bad, being an unbelievable idiot. So what? That is because business is so broad. There are many business majors who only major in business because it allows them to get a job. They do not learn the theories I am talking about. So yes, if you go into marketing, you will not learn the same stuff I am learning right now.

Edit: You also engage in ad hominum attacks more than any person I have ever met on the internet. That is saying a lot.

[IcarusAngel]

I've repeatedly asked you to cite Misean papers published in the last few years. This should be pretty easy, as they train you in college how to use the databases in the early courses. You have failed to do so.

You've failed to name even one business theory that has even a shread of the signifigance as Simon's or Axelrod's influence on academics.

And if you don't know advanced mathematics how are you even able to determine what is a "good mathematical theory" and a bad one? And let's see your "business program" that actually goes into differential equations or anything useful in mathematics?

Quit trolling. You're only digging yourself deeper.

[Skooma Addict]

I've repeatedly asked you to cite Misean papers published in the last few years. This should be pretty easy, as they train you in college how to use the databases in the early courses. You have failed to do so.

Lol. Wtf are you talking about? Can you explain how this is relevant? I know how to use college databases if that's what your talking about.



You've failed to name even one business theory that has even a shread of the signifigance as Simon's or Axelrod's influence on academics.

An influence on what? An influence on society? I could name a lot that had far more influence than anything you mentioned.


And if you don't know advanced mathematics how are you even able to determine what is a "good mathematical theory" and a bad one? And let's see your "business program" that actually goes into differential equations or anything useful in mathematics?


Again, I just don't see what me determining a good mathematical theory from a bad one has to do with anything. Are you attempting to insult my intelligence because I am not an expert in mathematics?

[IcarusAngel]

Instead of posting anything useful, you continue trolling.

Anybody can make a statement, backing it up is a different story. I've already proven the usefulness of political science, you have failed to prove the usefulness of business.

Debate over. And by the way, if I want to learn how to 'run a business,' (which many of my friends and family members have done, no degree in business) I'll just use the only thing necessary, "common sense" and a decent idea.

[Skooma Addict]

Instead of posting anything useful, you continue trolling.

What? I responded to all your points. Your the one who goes on these weird tangents.


Anybody can make a statement, backing it up is a different story. I've already proven the usefulness of political science, you have failed to prove the usefulness of business.

Business is useful because it allows one to understand how to satisfy demand, or more importantly how to perform a productive role in a firm that satisfies demand. Good enough?


Debate over. And by the way, if I want to learn how to 'run a business,' (which many of my friends and family members have done, no degree in business) I'll just use the only thing necessary, "common sense" and a decent idea.

Oh its that easy is it?

"A study done by Inc. magazine and the National Business Incubator Association (NBIA) revealed that 80 percent of new businesses fail within the first five years."

So as usual, you don't know what your talking about. Regardless, I was talking about large businesses, where the theories that I was referring to are applied.

[IcarusAngel]

LxuS-cNEQyA

FNOYb216wdM

[tradeunionsupporter]

Libertarians are a lot like Conservatives.