About Market peoples hardon for competition

[RGacky3]

Many Market guys here see competition as the solution for everything wrong in Capitalism.

But as I see it competition causes a lot more problems than it solves. competition encourages paying workers less and working them more, it encourages keeping unemployment high so that they can get away with this, it encourages being lax on saftey for as long as you can get away with it, it discourages any type of phanthropic work, it encourages only providing for the wealthy (high end consumer buisiness is much more profitable than low end). I'm sure there are many negative aspects I'm leaving out.

The point is, compeition is not a panecea, a far better solution is democracy.

[Dean]

Many Market guys here see competition as the solution for everything wrong in Capitalism.

But as I see it competition causes a lot more problems than it solves. competition encourages paying workers less and working them more, it encourages keeping unemployment high so that they can get away with this, it encourages being lax on saftey for as long as you can get away with it, it discourages any type of phanthropic work, it encourages only providing for the wealthy (high end consumer buisiness is much more profitable than low end). I'm sure there are many negative aspects I'm leaving out.

The point is, compeition is not a panecea, a far better solution is democracy.

Competition, by nature of its intensively profit-driven-character, will always be more efficient when it can provide greater profits to its ownership (who themselves become an increasingly narrow population) in the context of fewer wages, goods and services - all basic forms of price-cutting which provide nearly immediate benefit to the aforementioned owners.

Since all sales are a form of competition in the context of whatever data is available to each party, increasingly ignorant, disenfranchised consumer and laborer populations always provide the best environment for capital, and subsequently whatever capitalist firms which can effect this character most profoundly will have the most competitive model.

[LeftSideDown]

Many Market guys here see competition as the solution for everything wrong in Capitalism.

But as I see it competition causes a lot more problems than it solves. competition encourages paying workers less and working them more, it encourages keeping unemployment high so that they can get away with this, it encourages being lax on saftey for as long as you can get away with it, it discourages any type of phanthropic work, it encourages only providing for the wealthy (high end consumer buisiness is much more profitable than low end). I'm sure there are many negative aspects I'm leaving out.

The point is, compeition is not a panecea, a far better solution is democracy.

You're wrong. (I'm tempted to just write this, but I'll elaborate)

Competition forces wages lower (yes), but it also forces prices lower for the same reason. If you do not see this, I don't know what to say. The same forces that work for competing sellers-of-labor applies to sellers-of-any-good. It does not encourage keeping unemployment high, minimum wage and burdensome regulation does this. It does not encourage laxness on safety, and having a more "safe" product actually gives a competitive edge (I.e. Are you going to ride an airline where half the planes crash? No, of course not, no matter how much cheaper it is.). If producers only sought to provide the minimum, why did even some of the first cars have cushions? Why do they look aesthetically pleasing? Its all part of competition. Granted people won't buy a car solely for its looks, but it is a factor, just like how soft the seats are, how safe it is, how many passengers it can hold, so on so forth. What are you talking about? Discourages philanthropic work? Have you seen the number of charities there are in the US, even though the united states government eliminates their need by providing welfare (If you haven't, the number is 973,354)? This shows how much philanthropy the free-market provides EVEN when there are incentives against it (i.e. you're already paying money for other people, why should you pay more?). Listen, you care about the workers/otherpeople/whatnot (I do to, we just disagree on the means to help them most) and this very fact at least opens the possibility of other people also having altruistic motivations. If there is a demand for something odds are there is a market for it.

If only encouraged providing for the wealthy, why are the rest of us here (I'm not getting any support from the government or charity)? Leaving out those two stipulations, we must be provided for SOMEHOW by the market, else how are we here? And we aren't provided for "minimally" as you'll no doubt assert. Do you have a TV? Do you have a Computer (I think so)? Do you eat more than one meal a day? Can you consume more than 2000 calories a day? Do you have cable/satellite/local tv? What about a mattress? What about chairs and a table? Appliances? A toaster, a microwave, an oven, a washing machine/dryer? Do you have electricity? Do you have internet? Do you have running water? Do you have central heat/air conditioning? Windows? Locks on your doors? A backyard? I think for most of these you'll say yes, so I think you're being provided for pretty well.

[Dean]

You're wrong. (I'm tempted to just write this, but I'll elaborate)

Competition forces wages lower (yes), but it also forces prices lower for the same reason. If you do not see this, I don't know what to say. The same forces that work for competing sellers-of-labor applies to sellers-of-any-good. It does not encourage keeping unemployment high, minimum wage and burdensome regulation does this. It does not encourage laxness on safety, and having a more "safe" product actually gives a competitive edge (I.e. Are you going to ride an airline where half the planes crash? No, of course not, no matter how much cheaper it is.). If producers only sought to provide the minimum, why did even some of the first cars have cushions? Why do they look aesthetically pleasing? Its all part of competition. Granted people won't buy a car solely for its looks, but it is a factor, just like how soft the seats are, how safe it is, how many passengers it can hold, so on so forth. What are you talking about? Discourages philanthropic work? Have you seen the number of charities there are in the US, even though the united states government eliminates their need by providing welfare (If you haven't, the number is 973,354)? This shows how much philanthropy the free-market provides EVEN when there are incentives against it (i.e. you're already paying money for other people, why should you pay more?). Listen, you care about the workers/otherpeople/whatnot (I do to, we just disagree on the means to help them most) and this very fact at least opens the possibility of other people also having altruistic motivations. If there is a demand for something odds are there is a market for it.

If only encouraged providing for the wealthy, why are the rest of us here (I'm not getting any support from the government or charity)? Leaving out those two stipulations, we must be provided for SOMEHOW by the market, else how are we here? And we aren't provided for "minimally" as you'll no doubt assert. Do you have a TV? Do you have a Computer (I think so)? Do you eat more than one meal a day? Can you consume more than calories dollars a day? Do you have cable/satellite/local tv? What about a mattress? What about chairs and a table? Appliances? A toaster, a microwave, an oven, a washing machine/dryer? Do you have electricity? Do you have internet? Do you have running water? Do you have central heat/air conditioning? Windows? Locks on your doors? A backyard? I think for most of these you'll say yes, so I think you're being provided for pretty well.

Are you even aware of the presence of disparate markets? Like, for example India and the US? It is very clear that driving wages down doesn't need to translate into cheaper commodities for the end-user, and that is the crux of the issue - by utilizing a different economic context, that is the Indian one, for wage-labor, and selling goods in a wealthier market, these firms are able to gain enormous profit, while those who purchase the goods, and those who sell their labor, do not benefit except to rise a bit - that is, the least amount of compensation that the corporation must provide.

The most efficient systems of acquisition of capital always provide least for the economically underprivileged, because the scarcity of goods for them drives up the value of consumer products, down the value of wage-labor, and has a compelling effect in boosting revenue for the capitalist entity.

[anticap]

And we aren't provided for "minimally" as you'll no doubt assert. Do you have a TV? Do you have a Computer (I think so)? Do you eat more than one meal a day? Can you consume more than calories dollars a day? Do you have cable/satellite/local tv? What about a mattress? What about chairs and a table? Appliances? A toaster, a microwave, an oven, a washing machine/dryer? Do you have electricity? Do you have internet? Do you have running water? Do you have central heat/air conditioning? Windows? Locks on your doors? A backyard? I think for most of these you'll say yes, so I think you're being provided for pretty well.

What is this "provided for" nonsense? What is this bit of trickery that pretends that these items were bestowed upon the very workers who created them by the economic system under which they happened to toil?

Fool: workers produce all wealth; capitalists none (much less capitalism). Whatever luxuries workers enjoy, they are entitled to far, far more, since they produce far, far more, and since they are entitled to the entirety of the fruits of their labors. And unless I've mistaken your ideology, you're squirming right now, since your kind like to make similar appeals to the fruits of one's labor. The difference, of course, is that you attribute the labor to the overseer. This is where your entire worldview collapses in on itself. Will you never learn? Socialism is the fullest expression of your pretended desires. Your aversion to it can only be attributed to your secret desire to become an overseer and suckle at the teat of the worker; to live off the fruits of another's labor.

[LeftSideDown]

Are you even aware of the presence of disparate markets? Like, for example India and the US? It is very clear that driving wages down doesn't need to translate into cheaper commodities for the end-user, and that is the crux of the issue - by utilizing a different economic context, that is the Indian one, for wage-labor, and selling goods in a wealthier market, these firms are able to gain enormous profit, while those who purchase the goods, and those who sell their labor, do not benefit except to rise a bit - that is, the least amount of compensation that the corporation must provide.

Did I say that driving down wages necessarily meant lower prices? No, competition does that, just like competition between sellers of labor lowers wages. India has such a large export market because it (the Indian Government) purposefully keeps the value of its money low so that exchanges against other currencies are more favorable towards the buyer (the people they are exporting to). This inflation distorts the market and makes it less profitable to sell to locals (even though it should be more profitable due to less transportation/management costs).
For proof, see:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c9/Components_of_the_money_supply_of_india_1970-2007.gif


The most efficient systems of acquisition of capital always provide least for the economically underprivileged, because the scarcity of goods for them drives up the value of consumer products, down the value of wage-labor, and has a compelling effect in boosting revenue for the capitalist entity.

Yes, you're right. I won't debate this point because its basically true. I would, however, say that as a society become more capital intensive its labor becomes more productive and real wages (not nominal) raise in conjunction with this. The economically underprivileged are/would be constantly improving in a free-market/capitalist society, whereas in a Socialist society, I feel, no one would ever improve because there would be stagnation in the fields of innovation.

[LeftSideDown]

What is this "provided for" nonsense? What is this bit of trickery that pretends that these items were bestowed upon the very workers who created them by the economic system under which they happened to toil?

Your communist assumptions aside, the assertion is constantly made that only the rich are/would be the only ones provided for (the production of goods is only aimed at this market, prices are high enough as to only be provided to the richest, supply is low enough to only be provided to the richest, etc etc) and I assert to you it is not. The fact that you have all these commodities (even though you hold a much smaller percentage of the wealth) proves that the market aims to capture the broadest consumer base, not just the richest. There seems to be the implicit assumption that workers are "Exploited" because they are given only sustenance level wages, kept alive only for the benefit of the rich, and if this was so they would not have all these things I listed.


Fool: workers produce all wealth; capitalists none (much less capitalism). Whatever luxuries workers enjoy, they are entitled to far, far more, since they produce far, far more, and since they are entitled to the entirety of the fruits of their labors. And unless I've mistaken your ideology, you're squirming right now, since your kind like to make similar appeals to the fruits of one's labor. The difference, of course, is that you attribute the labor to the overseer. This is where your entire worldview collapses in on itself. Will you never learn? Socialism is the fullest expression of your pretended desires. Your aversion to it can only be attributed to your secret desire to become an overseer and suckle at the teat of the worker; to live off the fruits of another's labor.

I disagree that workers create all wealth (They did not create diamonds, trees, fruit, or other things that have value). I also disagree that capitalists create no wealth, but I'm so tired of arguing on this point, so you can look up my other posts if you're interested in this, but I doubt you are, so I won't waste either of our times.

If you say the overseer does nothing you're wrong. You seem to think all people are intrinsically good (not rational like I think) and don't need someone to be watching them to do their work. While this is true if they're made to think they're always watched, rather than actually being, its not true for the most part. People want to achieve their ends through the least laborious ends. If theres no overseers in socialism, there will be idleness. IF there are overseers, what do you pay them?

[RGacky3]

Discourages philanthropic work? Have you seen the number of charities there are in the US, even though the united states government eliminates their need by providing welfare (If you haven't, the number is 973,354)? This shows how much philanthropy the free-market provides EVEN when there are incentives against it (i.e. you're already paying money for other people, why should you pay more?).

you forgot tax brakes and PR.


Listen, you care about the workers/otherpeople/whatnot (I do to, we just disagree on the means to help them most) and this very fact at least opens the possibility of other people also having altruistic motivations. If there is a demand for something odds are there is a market for it.

First of all, no you don't, your answer to people down and out has always been to suck it up. The very idea of the market shoots out altruism because by definition its non profit.


If only encouraged providing for the wealthy, why are the rest of us here (I'm not getting any support from the government or charity)? Leaving out those two stipulations, we must be provided for SOMEHOW by the market, else how are we here? And we aren't provided for "minimally" as you'll no doubt assert. Do you have a TV? Do you have a Computer (I think so)? Do you eat more than one meal a day? Can you consume more than 2000 calories a day? Do you have cable/satellite/local tv? What about a mattress? What about chairs and a table? Appliances? A toaster, a microwave, an oven, a washing machine/dryer? Do you have electricity? Do you have internet? Do you have running water? Do you have central heat/air conditioning? Windows? Locks on your doors? A backyard? I think for most of these you'll say yes, so I think you're being provided for pretty well.

Its not just walfare, do you know how much goes into food subsidies? Housing subsidies, rent control, food stamps, do you also know howm any people in the world, actually starve? Over all the market is grossly in favor of the rich, and competition enhances that. Along with that you have minimal wage, unions, and other organizations that try and curbe the effects of Capitalism.


If theres no overseers in socialism, there will be idleness. IF there are overseers, what do you pay them?
__________________

Thats NEVER been proven, and infact evidence points to the opposite, if you'd like look up how the Anarchist Part of spain did compared to the rest of spain during the 1930s.

[LeftSideDown]

you forgot tax brakes and PR.

Okay? they are still voluntary charitable donations which I think is > government coerced taxes for the same purposes.


First of all, no you don't, your answer to people down and out has always been to suck it up. The very idea of the market shoots out altruism because by definition its non profit.

You're entitled to your opinion, I, however, would like to see poverty abolished not just extended (which is what socialism tends towards).


Its not just walfare, do you know how much goes into food subsidies? Housing subsidies, rent control, food stamps, do you also know howm any people in the world, actually starve? Over all the market is grossly in favor of the rich, and competition enhances that. Along with that you have minimal wage, unions, and other organizations that try and curbe the effects of Capitalism.

Yes, and I'm against all of it. Subsidies allow the companies to charge higher prices in general because the government makes up the slack (in terms of generating demand). People wouldn't starve in a free-market, but because of the government farmers are encouraged to grow more than is needed only for the government to absorb the excess supply because otherwise prices would drop.


Thats NEVER been proven, and infact evidence points to the opposite, if you'd like look up how the Anarchist Part of spain did compared to the rest of spain during the 1930s.

If you could provide source(s) I'd appreciate, I don't know where to find such a comparison, all I know is that money was outlawed in Anarchic-Spain on pain of death. Also, I found this, which you might find interesting, although it is long and I won't pretend to have read all of it:

Thus, while it avoided the monetary contraction which plagued other nations in the early 30's, Spain enjoyed a depression courtesy of its militant labor unions, assisted by the labor laws of the Republican government. Disturbed by the plight of the workers, the unions and the government simple-mindedly tried to make matters better by pushing up wages and improving working conditions. The necessary and empirically observed result was massive unemployment; many workers were simply not worth the higher price, and so no one chose to hire them. Rather than blame the unions and the "pro-labor" government, many unemployed workers turned to ever greater militancy and hatred of the capitalist system.[112]

Perhaps the most plausible criticism of capitalist economies is that they sometimes allow useful labor and capital to go to waste. Under the circumstances, one might expect that the workers' revolutionary takeover of their employers' property in 1936 would have to make matters better. With all these idle workers seizing the empty factories, wouldn't production have to increase? It did not; after the establishment of worker control, unemployment became even more severe despite the wartime economy's massive monetary growth and conscription. The next section investigates this puzzle in detail.

Source: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

[anticap]

I disagree that workers create all wealth (They did not create diamonds, trees, fruit, or other things that have value). I also disagree that capitalists create no wealth, but I'm so tired of arguing on this point, so you can look up my other posts if you're interested in this, but I doubt you are, so I won't waste either of our times.

And I'm so tired of seeing slavish, sycophantic, self-loathing, pro-capitalist dupes, making statements that display how woefully ignorant they are as to the nature and origins of value, that I'm tempted to simply dismiss you as a troll for having trotted out the same old ancient "refutations" (which Marx explained away in excruciating detail 150 years ago) to the notion that you -- and not your boss -- create wealth.

[RGacky3]

Okay? they are still voluntary charitable donations which I think is > government coerced taxes for the same purposes.


First of all, they are incentivised by government regulation (tax cuts), that was my point.

Second of all, as far as your statement of them being MORE than government projects, I'm calling bullshit unless you back it up.


You're entitled to your opinion, I, however, would like to see poverty abolished not just extended (which is what socialism tends towards).


You did'nt respond to what I was saying, or address any of my points.

ALso Socialism does'nt extend poverty, capitalism does.


Yes, and I'm against all of it. Subsidies allow the companies to charge higher prices in general because the government makes up the slack (in terms of generating demand). People wouldn't starve in a free-market, but because of the government farmers are encouraged to grow more than is needed only for the government to absorb the excess supply because otherwise prices would drop.


My point was that its government intervention that makes sure the poor are provided for, you did'nt refute that. So it stands.


If you could provide source(s) I'd appreciate, I don't know where to find such a comparison, all I know is that money was outlawed in Anarchic-Spain on pain of death. Also, I found this, which you might find interesting, although it is long and I won't pretend to have read all of it:

http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_catalonia_dolgoff.html
http://libcom.org/library/collectives-leval-3

My source for the fact that their production rates were higher was the Encyclopedia britannica. Look it up.

[Left-Reasoning]

competition encourages paying workers less and working them more,

What? How did you figure that out?

[graffic]

ALso Socialism does'nt extend poverty, capitalism does.

I see it as a genuine criticism of the "socialism" we have seen attempted to enact so far on earth in the forms of the USSR, China etc etc. Although communism solves problems that were apparent in capitalism it simultaneously creates other problems such as the so called effect of "bringing everyone down to the same level". If you raise people up from the bottom you also bring people down to achieve equality, there is no longer a "top" to aspire to, or loathe or whatever, etc. I'd be interested in reading the counter-argument to this. What are the reasons behind humans wanting to be "better" than another and exploit to possess "more" capital? I disagree that it is human nature, but if it is not then the conditions in which we live perhaps subconsciously play into our minds making us think in the capitalist "work ethic" mindset. And then there is the question of changing this, and how it is done, whether it is worthwhile etc.

[Bob George]

Competition is only really a problem in the mixed economy, where government plays a bigger role. Because it encourages established competitors to utilise government to protect themselves against competition. So the fact that there are competitors, means the established competitors use government to create a very rule-oriented economy where anyone who isn't already established has to jump through a million hoops to even get into business. That's what leads to unestablished competitors employing some of the tactics you mentioned like paying workers less and being lax on safety. These cost money, and small businesses can't afford those costs because the cost of keeping up with regulation is so high. By the time businesses have covered all their bases in terms of fulfilling regulatory requirements, the can't afford to pay their workers well or provide a safe environment for them to work in.

[LeftSideDown]

First of all, they are incentivised by government regulation (tax cuts), that was my point.

Second of all, as far as your statement of them being MORE than government projects, I'm calling bullshit unless you back it up.

Okay? They existed before government tax cuts so just because people are more inclined to donate because of tax cuts, obviously the urge existed before such an institution.


You did'nt respond to what I was saying, or address any of my points.

ALso Socialism does'nt extend poverty, capitalism does.

Compare Standard of Living in US with that of Socialist countries (and the US isn't even really capitalistic) and I think my point is more than illustrated.


My point was that its government intervention that makes sure the poor are provided for, you did'nt refute that. So it stands.

You say "provided for" I say "kept down", "bought as voters", "ensured as dependents on an ever-larger government". The only way to raise the poor from poverty is to increase their marginal productivity, not throw money at them and expect them suddenly to start contributing to the division of labor.


http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/spain/coll_catalonia_dolgoff.html
http://libcom.org/library/collectives-leval-3

My source for the fact that their production rates were higher was the Encyclopedia britannica. Look it up.

It seems to me that neither of those addressed the unemployment, and if I killed 25% of the population in the United States right now, there'd be no doubt that wages would raise (Just like if 25% of the population was unemployed).

[RGacky3]

Okay? They existed before government tax cuts so just because people are more inclined to donate because of tax cuts, obviously the urge existed before such an institution.

Yeah, mainly religiousl based, but still, ok. That does'nt mean you can rely on it, or that it has anything to do with the market.


Compare Standard of Living in US with that of Socialist countries (and the US isn't even really capitalistic) and I think my point is more than illustrated.

Well a fair comparison would be the US vrs Canada, or Norway, or whatever. First world countries, some that lean toward free market, others that lean slightly toward socialization. THAT is a fair comparison.

As far as third world socialistic countries a fair comparison would be to see how well they are doing before and after socialization.


You say "provided for" I say "kept down", "bought as voters", "ensured as dependents on an ever-larger government". The only way to raise the poor from poverty is to increase their marginal productivity, not throw money at them and expect them suddenly to start contributing to the division of labor.

You have the shortest memory don't you.

YOUR POINT: Poor people in the US still get provided for
MY RESPONCE: Thats due to government programs.
YOUR RESPONCE: ......

Poverty and wealth ahve nothing to do with productivity btw.


It seems to me that neither of those addressed the unemployment, and if I killed 25% of the population in the United States right now, there'd be no doubt that wages would raise (Just like if 25% of the population was unemployed).

What in holy hell are you talking about. Again, let me remind you what we were talking about.

you said
"If theres no overseers in socialism, there will be idleness."

I proved you wrong with the example of anarchist spain, you asked for a source.


What? How did you figure that out?

Free Market 101, something that the free market proponents have yet to figure out.

[LeftSideDown]

Well a fair comparison would be the US vrs Canada, or Norway, or whatever. First world countries, some that lean toward free market, others that lean slightly toward socialization. THAT is a fair comparison.

As far as third world socialistic countries a fair comparison would be to see how well they are doing before and after socialization.

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-603.pdf

You can just look at the graphs to view the how the US stacks up against the Scandinavian countries (those most often cited as the shining examples of socialism). And, it seems to me that you don't advocate socialism/communism, but rather an extensive state of heavy taxation/government welfare. Canada is the 7th most free economy in the world (hardly socialistic which has no freedom in the economy as all industries must conform to a central plan).


You have the shortest memory don't you.

YOUR POINT: Poor people in the US still get provided for
MY RESPONCE: Thats due to government programs.
YOUR RESPONCE: ......

Poverty and wealth ahve nothing to do with productivity btw.

I'm not denying or have I ever sought out to deny that there is an extensive welfare state that serves to keep a large portion of the population unemployed, dependent, and loyal voters. I don't see what your point is, they would be cared for in a free-market as well, and be encouraged to get a job and not just have more children.

So countries with no industry and no capital should/could be rich, since wealth has nothing to do with productivity.


What in holy hell are you talking about. Again, let me remind you what we were talking about.

you said
"If theres no overseers in socialism, there will be idleness."

I proved you wrong with the example of anarchist spain, you asked for a source.

Yes, and I can make an economy be much better if 25% of the population is unemployed too. What is your point? Did your posts prove there were no overseers, or just that the overseers were elected? You haven't addressed the fact that the unemployment levels were well into the double digits, and only see anarchic spain as a bastion of your points.

[RGacky3]

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-603.pdf

You can just look at the graphs to view the how the US stacks up against the Scandinavian countries (those most often cited as the shining examples of socialism). And, it seems to me that you don't advocate socialism/communism, but rather an extensive state of heavy taxation/government welfare. Canada is the 7th most free economy in the world (hardly socialistic which has no freedom in the economy as all industries must conform to a central plan).

First of all, any graph that shows per capita stuff does'nt intrest me, just because a country has more wealth does'nt mean its citizens are better off. Study after study has shown that poverty rates are much lower in the Nordic countries, the economy more stable, jobs more secure, working conditions better.

I don't advocate heavy taxation/government welfare, what I advocate is democratic control over the economy, whatever way it can come.


I don't see what your point is, they would be cared for in a free-market as well, and be encouraged to get a job and not just have more children.

So countries with no industry and no capital should/could be rich, since wealth has nothing to do with productivity.

I'm saying INDIVIDUAL wealth has nothing to do with INDIVIDUAL productivity.

Also they would'nt be cared for in a free-market, because there is no incentives to care for them, they don't have disposable income, theres no incentive to sell cheap food or housing because the profit margin is much smaller, the market would just let them die because they don't have any demand power (i.e. money), and the supply would be better off serving the real demand (those with money).

THAT is why Capitalist economies have welfare systems, beceause the market would literally kill off the poor.


Yes, and I can make an economy be much better if 25% of the population is unemployed too. What is your point? Did your posts prove there were no overseers, or just that the overseers were elected? You haven't addressed the fact that the unemployment levels were well into the double digits, and only see anarchic spain as a bastion of your points.

FIrst of all that 25% was that just the ANarchistic part of Spain? Or spain in total? Also how were those figures calculated? (Do they count people involved in an informal economy? Those who took control over a factory? So on and so forth).

[anticap]

People like LeftSideDown ought to be banned. When the going gets tough, they abandon threads, only to pop up again somewhere else, peddling the same nonsense that led them to be driven from those other threads.

Sincere people, with a sincere desire to learn and come to an understanding with others rather than propagandize, hang with a thread until one party or the other has adjusted their position in the face of convincing argument. Or, they agree to disagree; but they don't bring it up again elsewhere, as though the previous conversation never happened (Hayenmill is notorious for this).

All reactionaries who engage in this sort of behavior ought to be banned, and all their undefended propaganda threads permanently deleted -- unless the rebuttals to them could serve useful, in which case the threads should be archived in the trashcan (but all evangelistic signature links should be stripped from the banned reactionary's profile).

I have all the patience in the world for sincere conversationalists, of any stripe, but I've got no patience at all for these people.

[Havet]

Sincere people, with a sincere desire to learn and come to an understanding with others rather than propagandize, hang with a thread until one party or the other has adjusted their position in the face of convincing argument. Or, they agree to disagree; but they don't bring it up again elsewhere, as though the previous conversation never happened (Hayenmill is notorious for this).


Once again you show your affinity to make empty sentences without proving them as true.

You want me to link you all the threads which I started and I had the last call, because nobody bothered to reply to me?

Grow up, will you?

[anticap]

How does this:

You want me to link you all the threads which I started and I had the last call, because nobody bothered to reply to me?

Relate to this:

Hayenmill is notorious for bringing subjects up again elsewhere, as though the previous conversation never happened.

:confused:


Once again you show your affinity to make empty sentences without proving them as true.

Empty? Au contraire! You and I, on more than one occasion, have engaged in conversations that have eventually fizzled out, as conversations do. And yet, on more than one occasion, you have later exhumed the carcasses of your long-dead "arguments" as though I might not remember burying them myself! As to "proving" any of this, you're right, I have no intention of dredging through the forum in search of every interaction between us. Naturally, you're relying on this (a common right-wing ploy) -- and we've had that conversation before as well! It's enough for me to know that you remember all this as well as I do, since you're a smart girl with a sharp memory.



Grow up, will you?

If "growing up" means accepting the shenanigans of right-wing propagandists, then, no! I shall never grow up! I shall play kick-the-reactionary-can and stay young forever! :D

[Havet]

How does this:


Relate to this:


:confused:


Playing dummy are we?

I bring up conversations elsewhere precisely because nobody adressed my points in the previous conversations.


Empty? Au contraire! You and I, on more than one occasion, have engaged in conversations that have eventually fizzled out, as conversations do. And yet, on more than one occasion, you have later exhumed the carcasses of your long-dead "arguments" as though I might not remember burying them myself! As to "proving" any of this, you're right, I have no intention of dredging through the forum in search of every interaction between us. Naturally, you're relying on this (a common right-wing ploy) -- and we've had that conversation before as well! It's enough for me to know that you remember all this as well as I do, since you're a smart girl with a sharp memory.

I don't remmember doing this at all. Perhaps you would be so kind to actually prove your accusations?

[anticap]

Playing dummy are we?

I bring up conversations elsewhere precisely because nobody adressed my points in the previous conversations.

You're not following me: I said that you are notorious for resurrecting topics that you have previously abandoned elsewhere. Whether or not you've been on the other end of that shit-stick is beside the point -- though it does imply that you would be able to empathize, if only right-wingers were capable of human feeling. :D


I don't remmember doing this at all. Perhaps you would be so kind to actually prove your accusations?

Oh, piss off (http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php). :)

[Havet]

You're not following me: I said that you are notorious for resurrecting topics that you have previously abandoned elsewhere. Whether or not you've been on the other end of that shit-stick is beside the point -- though it does imply that you would be able to empathize, if only right-wingers were capable of human feeling. :D



Oh, piss off (http://www.revleft.com/vb/search.php). :)

I'm sorry, you made the accusation, its up to you to prove it.

[anticap]

I'm sorry, you made the accusation, its up to you to prove it.

Welcome to the OI, kiddo.

[Havet]

Welcome to the OI, kiddo.

I'm here longer than you are, it should be me welcoming ^^

[anticap]

I'm here longer than you are, it should be me welcoming ^^

Should be, but you reactionaries are incapable of human empathy, so you've no way of knowing that I might feel awkward, milling around over here in the corner all by my lonesome.

I don't hold your handicap against you. :)

[Havet]

Should be, but you reactionaries are incapable of human empathy, so you've no way of knowing that I might feel awkward, milling around over here in the corner all by my lonesome.

I don't hold your handicap against you. :)

Please stop generalizing and inventing stuff about me as you go along

[Klaatu]

It does not encourage laxness on safety, and having a more "safe" product actually gives a competitive edge (I.e. Are you going to ride an airline where half the planes crash? No, of course not, no matter how much cheaper it is.)

People have a right to be reasonably safe when traveling on public transport. Your "buyer beware" philosophy
is typical of why capitalism needs heavy-handed regulation, something which you denounce at every turn.
Either that, or the entire system is doomed to fail (as it is now in the process of doing, considering this
alternative has been chosen by the prior US regime, that is, one of hands-off deregulation.)


If producers only sought to provide the minimum, why did even some of the first cars have cushions? Why do they look aesthetically pleasing?

So then why did they not provide seat belts, air bags, antilock brakes, or child-safety door locks? These safety
devices had to be mandated. So did pollution controls. No car maker had emission-reduction devices before
they were mandated.


Discourages philanthropic work? Have you seen the number of charities there are in the US, even though the united states government eliminates their need by providing welfare (If you haven't, the number is 973,354)? This shows how much philanthropy the free-market provides EVEN when there are incentives against it (i.e. you're already paying money for other people, why should you pay more?). Listen, you care about the workers/otherpeople/whatnot (I do to, we just disagree on the means to help them most) and this very fact at least opens the possibility of other people also having altruistic motivations. If there is a demand for something odds are there is a market for it.

If you are not against charity (private) then why are you against welfare? (public) By the way, you had said
that your dad is unemployed. Do you chastise him for accepting government benefits? Money that puts food
on your table? Or would you rather starve, you naive young know-it-all???


(I'm not getting any support from the government or charity)

Do you mean that your dad (your breadwinner) does not accept unemployment compensation? C'mon now.

[Dean]

You two need to stop this petty bickering. And this is directed at anticap just as much as hayenmill.

In returning to the original point, capitalists (the idealist type), I think the focus on competition stems from the consistent focus on narrow, individual expressions of rights rather than explicit, materialist examples. Simply put, the materialist communists seek out rights insofar as they exist in systemic form, while the right wing tends to seek out reclusive ideals.

What is most interesting is the argument that propertarians "seek to insure the greatest individual liberty." Any cursory glance at the proposed systems - lordship over property versus communal or democratic economic decisiveness - really makes it apparent who in fact supports greater individual liberty (that is, if you measure the presence of individual liberty also in terms of how many are able to enjoy this liberty).

[Klaatu]

People like LeftSideDown ought to be banned. When the going gets tough, they abandon threads, only to pop up again somewhere else, peddling the same nonsense that led them to be driven from those other threads.

I don't know, I think guys like LeftSideDown need to be called out.

These guys are fresh out of school, (or still in school), have not ever been out there in real life (not
likely ever have been married, divorced, raised kids, served in the military, or went through any of
life's major trials). They think they know it all. They study Mises and his ilk, and fantasize about how
the world ought to be. Well the real world is not what these young naive capitalists want it to be, nor
ever can be. There are simply too many criminals and other dishonest people out there for a capitalistic
system to work. Hence it must be doomed to fail. We need a better system. Socialism can work better.

[Havet]

Sorry to meddle in, but I just want to clarify something, for the sake of truth:




So then why did they not provide seat belts, air bags, antilock brakes, or child-safety door locks? These safety
devices had to be mandated. So did pollution controls. No car maker had emission-reduction devices before
they were mandated.

Around 1958 seatbelts became standard in all major automobile companies (no mandatory law).

ONLY in 1970 was the first ever mandatory seatbelt law passed (Australia, even though there were some other state-demands being made as early as 1964).

Sources:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/the-man-who-saved-a-million-lives-nils-bohlin--inventor-of-the-seatbelt-1773844.html

http://www.driverstechnology.co.uk/seatbelts.htm

---

As for airbags, the first ones appeared in early 70s. As the following quote explains:



The development of airbags coincided with an international interest in automobile safety legislation. Some safety experts advocated a performance-based occupant protection standard rather than a standard mandating a particular technical solution, which could rapidly become outdated and might not be a cost-effective approach. As countries successively mandated seat belt restraints, there was less emphasis placed on other designs for several decades.[8]

Source:

Safety Design, John Fenton, The Times Jan 24 1969

---

As for anti-lock brakes, they existed early on the 50s, but only started appearing more during the 70s.

I haven't seen any legislation requiring mandatory use of ABS in autmobiles, and i've only seen some rumours of mandatory abs in motorbikes. Perhaps you could show your sources?

Sources:

http://www.welovecadillacs.com/history.html

http://www.motorera.com/cadillac/cad1970/1972/CAD72.HTM

---

ONLY in vehicle emissions control do we find that LAW preceeded industry's standards. But I can't find any sources on the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_emissions_control#History) articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCV_valve), so I can't really be sure.


The first effort at controlling pollution from automobiles was the PCV (positive crankcase ventilation) system. This draws crankcase fumes heavy in unburned hydrocarbons — a precursor to photochemical smog — into the engine's intake tract so they are burned rather than released unburned from the crankcase into the atmosphere. Positive crankcase ventilation was first installed on a widespread basis by law on all new 1961-model cars first sold in California. The following year, New York required it. By 1964, most new cars sold in the U.S. were so equipped, and PCV quickly became standard equipment on all vehicles worldwide.[1]
The first legislated exhaust (tailpipe) emission standards were promulgated by the State of California for 1966 model year for cars sold in that state, followed by the United States as a whole in model year 1968. The standards were progressively tightened year by year, as mandated by the U.S. EPA.


Prior to the early 1960s, automobile petrol engines vented combustion gases directly to the atmosphere through a simple vent tube. Frequently, this consisted of a pipe (the "road draft tube") that extended out from the crankcase down to the bottom of the engine compartment. The bottom of the pipe was open to the atmosphere, and was placed such that when the car was in motion a slight vacuum would be hopefully obtained, helping to extract combustion gases as they collected in the crankcase. The oil mist would also be discharged, resulting in an oily film being deposited in the middle of each travel lane on heavily-used roads. The system was not positive though, as gases could travel both ways, or not move at all, dependent on conditions. Most modern diesel engines still use this type of system to dispose of crankcase fumes. During World War II however, a different type of crankcase ventilation had to be invented to allow tank engines to operate during deep fording operations, where the normal draft tube ventilator would have allowed water to enter the crankcase and destroy the engine. The PCV system and its control valve were invented to meet this need, but the need for it on automobiles was not recognized.
In 1952, Professor A. J. Haagen-Smit, of the California Institute of Technology at Pasadena, postulated that unburned hydrocarbons were a primary constituent of smog, and that gasoline powered automobiles were a major source of those hydrocarbons. After some investigation by the GM Research Laboratory (Dr. Lloyd L. Withrow) it was discovered in 1958 that the road draft tube was a major source, about half, of the hydrocarbons coming from the automobile. GM's Cadillac Division, which had built many tanks during WWII, recognized that the simple PCV valve could be used to become the first major reduction in automotive hydrocarbon emissions. After confirming the PCV valves' effectiveness at hydrocarbon reduction, GM offered the PCV solution to the entire U.S. automobile industry, royalty free, through its trade association, the Automobile Manufacturers Association (AMA). In the absence of any legislated requirement, the AMA members agreed to put it on all California cars voluntarily in 1961, with national application following one year later, in 1962 .
Following its introduction into production, several years later the PCV became the subject of a Federal grand jury investigation in 1967, when it was alleged by some industry critics that the AMA was conspiring to keep several such smog reduction devices like the PCV on the shelf to delay smog control. After eighteen months of investigation by U.S. Attorney Samuel Flatow, the grand jury returned a "no-bill" decision, clearing the AMA, but resulting in a "Consent Decree" that all U.S. automobile companies agreed not to work jointly on smog control activities for a period of ten years.

[Klaatu]

Try to dig a little deeper. We don't really know who wrote the Wiki articles, whether they
were written by industry, or by regulators (?)

I would also submit that there were no diesel emission regulations in the US until very recently.
(Why didn't the manufacturers clean them up forty years ago, alongside cars?)

And most safety items appeared on cars by pressure from people like Ralph Nader,
not always by law. The car manufacturers may not have put these devices on cars
of their own volition.

[Dean]

ONLY in vehicle emissions control do we find that LAW preceeded industry's standards. But I can't find any sources on the wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle_emissions_control#History) articles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PCV_valve), so I can't really be sure.

Sounds to me like you think that automobile firms with the backing of the state are a very good model.

[Havet]

Try to dig a little deeper. We don't really know who wrote the Wiki articles, whether they
were written by industry, or by regulators (?)

The sources I linked to (except the wiki quotes) i find them legitimate.


(Why didn't the manufacturers clean them up forty years ago, alongside cars?)

Probably due to several reasons:
-lack of scientific knowledge regarding pollution
-extremely low demand of greener cars
- expensive green car technology


And most safety items appeared on cars by pressure from people like Ralph Nader,
not always by law. The car manufacturers may not have put these devices on cars
of their own volition.

Could you link to where you found that information? That would be most appreciated.

[IcarusAngel]

hayenmill is peddling this same nonsense that I already discredited. Seat belts could have been implemented far before 1958, and they were generally designed to keep people from bouncing around in the car, not to prevent them from being safe in crashes. It was only after public pressure and regulation did car companies implement proper seat belts. Furthermore, the cars of that time were severely flawed (such as the Covair) and could roll even when parked, causing Ralph Nader to write "Unsafe at Any Speed" which brought in a whole new era of regulations where the death rate per 100,000 people went down.

Also, instead of trying to fix the problem, GM tried to dig up dirt on Ralph Nader:

GM responded to Nader's criticism of the Corvair by both trying to destroy Nader's image and silence him by "(1) conducted a series of interviews with acquaintances of the plaintiff, "questioning them about, and casting aspersions upon [his] political, social, racial and religious views; his integrity; his sexual proclivities and inclinations; and his personal habits"; (2) kept him under surveillance in public places for an unreasonable length of time; (3) caused him to be accosted by girls for the purpose of entrapping him into illicit relationships (4) made threatening, harassing and obnoxious telephone calls to him; (5) tapped his telephone and eavesdropped, by means of mechanical and electronic equipment, on his private conversations with others; and (6) conducted a "continuing" and harassing investigation of him."[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../#cite_note-nader-v-general-motors-4)
On March 22, 1966, GM President James Roche was forced to appear before a United States Senate (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/United_States_Senate) subcommittee, and to apologize to Nader for the company's campaign of harassment (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/Harassment) and intimidation (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/Intimidation). Nader later successfully sued GM for excessive invasion of privacy.[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../#cite_note-nader-v-general-motors-4) It was the money from this case that allowed him to lobby for consumer rights (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/Consumer_rights), leading to the creation the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‎ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency) and the Clean Air Act (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/Clean_Air_Act), among other things. "

""Before Nader's 1965 book, Unsafe at Any Speed, car dashboards were usually made of metal. Seat belts were available only at exotic auto parts stores, where they were expensive and customers had to bolt them to the car's floorboards. Even at low speeds, a car wreck could propel passengers into the metal dashboard or snap the driver's neck on the metal steering wheel. At mid-speed wrecks (say, 20 miles an hour), passengers could be thrown into the windshield, which was made of "safety glass" that could chisel a passenger's face and body. Car doors were not attached to the car's body firmly enough to withstand collision forces, and would often pop open or off in an accident, which would instantly make the car's frame (and the passengers inside) much more likely to be crumpled by the crash."

The automobile industry is the perfect example of corporations failing to design the safest, best cars available, and regulation having to be implemented.


Hayenmill either should present evidence that the hundreds of engineers who admitted their cars were designed badly were lying to congress or admit that he himself is the liar (since we've gone over this before).

[Havet]

hayenmill is peddling this same nonsense that I already discredited. Seat belts could have been implemented far before 1958, and they were generally designed to keep people from bouncing around in the car, not to prevent them from being safe in crashes. It was only after public pressure and regulation did car companies implement proper seat belts. Furthermore, the cars of that time were severely flawed (such as the Covair) and could roll even when parked, causing Ralph Nader to write "Unsafe at Any Speed" which brought in a whole new era of regulations where the death rate per 100,000 people went down.

Proof?


Also, instead of trying to fix the problem, GM tried to dig up dirt on Ralph Nader:

GM responded to Nader's criticism of the Corvair by both trying to destroy Nader's image and silence him by "(1) conducted a series of interviews with acquaintances of the plaintiff, "questioning them about, and casting aspersions upon [his] political, social, racial and religious views; his integrity; his sexual proclivities and inclinations; and his personal habits"; (2) kept him under surveillance in public places for an unreasonable length of time; (3) caused him to be accosted by girls for the purpose of entrapping him into illicit relationships (4) made threatening, harassing and obnoxious telephone calls to him; (5) tapped his telephone and eavesdropped, by means of mechanical and electronic equipment, on his private conversations with others; and (6) conducted a "continuing" and harassing investigation of him."[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../#cite_note-nader-v-general-motors-4)
On March 22, 1966, GM President James Roche was forced to appear before a United States Senate (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/United_States_Senate) subcommittee, and to apologize to Nader for the company's campaign of harassment (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/Harassment) and intimidation (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/Intimidation). Nader later successfully sued GM for excessive invasion of privacy.[5] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../#cite_note-nader-v-general-motors-4) It was the money from this case that allowed him to lobby for consumer rights (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/Consumer_rights), leading to the creation the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency‎ (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Agency) and the Clean Air Act (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../../wiki/Clean_Air_Act), among other things. "

""Before Nader's 1965 book, Unsafe at Any Speed, car dashboards were usually made of metal. Seat belts were available only at exotic auto parts stores, where they were expensive and customers had to bolt them to the car's floorboards. Even at low speeds, a car wreck could propel passengers into the metal dashboard or snap the driver's neck on the metal steering wheel. At mid-speed wrecks (say, 20 miles an hour), passengers could be thrown into the windshield, which was made of "safety glass" that could chisel a passenger's face and body. Car doors were not attached to the car's body firmly enough to withstand collision forces, and would often pop open or off in an accident, which would instantly make the car's frame (and the passengers inside) much more likely to be crumpled by the crash."

source?


Hayenmill either should present evidence that the hundreds of engineers who admitted their cars were designed badly were lying to congress or admit that he himself is the liar (since we've gone over this before).

Link to those "hundreds of engineers"?

Could you for once actually link to what your talking about?

[IcarusAngel]

You can find information about the Whistleblowers in the book "Whistleblowers: Exposing Corruption in Government and Industry" and in Nader's book "Unsafe at Any Speed." Nader's work was based on engineers who "knew they were designing crap" as Nader was not an engineer himself but a Harvard/Princeton trained lawyer who compiled the evidence. The car companies admitted their faults and the book is now on display at the Ford Museum.

The death rates are documented in his book "Crashing the Party."

If the car companies were doing nothing wrong why would they instigate a massive spying campaign on Nader in the first place to dig up dirt on him? This free-market "revisionism" doesn't even make any logical sense.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/printthread.php?t=113361&pp=20&page=25

Notice also since hayenmill was losing the debate my friend Olaf chimed in with this:

"t is common knowledge that the USSR was a failure just like practically every other attempt at achieving Communism. Also, while it is not common knowledge, it is true that Mises' critiques completely destroyed Socialism. Luckily, he converted many socialists (including Hayek) into advocates of Minarchism or Liberalism. Nowadays, socialists just engage in what Mises called "sandbox economics." Socialists "play economy" in the way that kids play games in the sandbox. They just come up with absurd pretend ideas that would never work in the real world."


This is the typical "rubbish" from Miseans, especially the highlighted parts.

Where did Mises prove this? As Leviathan has shown on the forum, Mises made some highly controversial claims, a lot of which are not accepted in economics, about socialism, and much of which contradicts basic logic.

Since they define "socialism" as anything that opposes Misean economics, it's basically a claim that only "Misean economics" is "perfect" for society. This is just like his claim that the computer industry funding could have "been better spent elsewhere" (based on what? and why wasn't the market picking up the slack for the government then?).

"As far as I am concerned, a free market is what the market would look like in the absence of government intervention in the economy."

Notice how "free-market" isn't even defined, but at least he prefaced this with "As far as I'm concerned..." instead of "Mises has proven."

anti-cap is right. These guys will basically say anything regardless of evidence to the contrary.

[Havet]

You can find information about the Whistleblowers in the book "Whistleblowers: Exposing Corruption in Government and Industry" and in Nader's book "Unsafe at Any Speed." Nader's work was based on engineers who "knew they were designing crap" as Nader was not an engineer himself but a Harvard/Princeton trained lawyer who compiled the evidence. The car companies admitted their faults and the book is now on display at the Ford Museum.

The death rates are documented in his book "Crashing the Party."

I'll see if I can find more about this. Thanks for the info.


If the car companies were doing nothing wrong why would they instigate a massive spying campaign on Nader in the first place to dig up dirt on him? This free-market "revisionism" doesn't even make any logical sense.

If what you said is true, then its probably because of the profit motive; they would lose reputation in the market.


Notice also since hayenmill was losing the debate my friend Olaf chimed in with this:

It was not about losing or winning debates. I wasn't in the mood for your re-definition fallacy games.

[Skooma Addict]

"t is common knowledge that the USSR was a failure just like practically every other attempt at achieving Communism. Also, while it is not common knowledge, it is true that Mises' critiques completely destroyed Socialism. Luckily, he converted many socialists (including Hayek) into advocates of Minarchism or Liberalism. Nowadays, socialists just engage in what Mises called "sandbox economics." Socialists "play economy" in the way that kids play games in the sandbox. They just come up with absurd pretend ideas that would never work in the real world."


This is the typical "rubbish" from Miseans, especially the highlighted parts.

Where did Mises prove this? As Leviathan has shown on the forum, Mises made some highly controversial claims, a lot of which are not accepted in economics, about socialism, and much of which contradicts basic logic.


He presented the calculation argument in a number of texts.



Since they define "socialism" as anything that opposes Misean economics, it's basically a claim that only "Misean economics" is "perfect" for society. This is just like his claim that the computer industry funding could have "been better spent elsewhere" (based on what? and why wasn't the market picking up the slack for the government then?).

That is not how they define socialism because nobody but you uses the term "Misean economics."

The argument that government funding could be better spend elsewhere is based on the belief that the markets price system allocates resources more efficiently than public officials.

[Klaatu]

Proof?

source?

Link to those "hundreds of engineers"?

Could you for once actually link to what your talking about?

Look it on Wikipedia. Get your nose out of your Mises Bible. If you do not
know any of these facts, that suggests that you do not (dare) ever
venture outside of the prescribed reading circle of Libertarian Ideology.

This is akin to me, as a Catholic child, growing up in the 1960s, having
been advised not to associate with "those Protestants."

Do you see the analogy here?

[Dean]

That is not how they define socialism because nobody but you uses the term "Misean economics."

:laugh: This is one of your funniest, most explicit non sequiturs.

[Skooma Addict]

:laugh: This is one of your funniest, most explicit non sequiturs.

Hey man, I am just trying to get him to drop the term "Misean economics."

Anyways, most Austrians claim socialism is when there is public/government ownership over the means of production. Not as anything that opposes Austrian economics.

[Klaatu]

"socialists just engage in what Mises called "sandbox economics."

Good gods. It is the Miseans that engage in this sandbox. Everything is so perfect... everything works... everything is beautiful...

You can design a complicated machine, but will it work? Case in point: Windows (hehe) Mises, et al, leave out so many unknown
variables in their "system," yet the whole contraption (capitalism) hums along like a Swiss watch. NOT!!!

[Skooma Addict]

"socialists just engage in what Mises called "sandbox economics."

There is something about this quote that seems to personally upset a lot of socialists. I will make sure to remember that.

[Havet]

Look it on Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is only reliable if it is backed up by legitimate sources. Wikipedia by itself is not a reliable source.


Get your nose out of your Mises Bible.

I am not a misean, nor am I knowledgeable of "misean economics". Proceed with the discussion or stop trying to focus on meaningless details.


If you do not
know any of these facts, that suggests that you do not (dare) ever
venture outside of the prescribed reading circle of Libertarian Ideology.

What the hell? You made the accusation, you back it up.


This is akin to me, as a Catholic child, growing up in the 1960s, having
been advised not to associate with "those Protestants."

Do you see the analogy here?

This is akin to me claiming unicorns exist and demand that YOU, who probably doesnt believe in them, prove they exist.

See the analogy?

[anticap]

I normally bow out after a warning, but I think it's important to explain this to Olaf and his comrades:

The term "Austrian economics" is problematic for those of us who understand that the good people of Austria are, in the main, not reactionary right-wing extremists bent on perpetuating -- and exacerbating -- the enslavement of the great majority of humanity. I, for one, cannot use that term without flinching. While I happen not to be Austrian, as a leftist I am capable of human empathy, and so I feel for those Austrians who would prefer not to be tarred with such a vile brush. Suppose Mussolini had dubbed his political system "Italian politics"; does anyone here (aside from the restricted members) have a heart so black and cold that s/he could refer to a group of skinheads as "Italians" without wincing in empathy with their actual Italian friends?

So then, what to call these so-called "Austrians" [sic]? One relatively widespread alternative is "psychological schoolers"; but that's not very catchy. It seems reasonable to name a school after its leading thinker, as with Marxism. But who is the leading "thinker" in this case? Is it the founder, Menger? Most "psychological schoolers" would probably not think so. Bohm-Bawerk is important there, but still relatively minor. Skipping ahead, Hayek, as any honest "psychological schooler" will concede, is far too heretical for the mantle. Then there's Rothbard, but, again, I think any sincere "psychological schooler" must admit that Rothbard was a second-rate thinker in comparison to any of the other candidates -- and besides, he was American, which takes the shine off him, somehow. The only realistic candidate left is the big man himself, Mises. And it's only fitting, given that the institute named for him is the leading voice of the "psychological school," for better or worse. From a purely academic standpoint, his books are absolutely canonical and on a level with Marx's within their respective schools of thought.

So there you have it: the so-called "Austrian school" [sic] is best referred to as the "Misesian school" [Pronounced: miz-EEZ-ian] (I too have a problem with "Misean," on grammatical grounds). Whether or not one considers Mises any more to be relevant, he is irrefutably the ideological father of the "psychological school" of economics, notwithstanding Menger.

Like it or lump it. I'm not going to call you an "Austrian," and I don't think anyone else should, either.

P.S. No one should use "von" when referring to Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek, et al. In the literal sense it simply means "from," but it came to signify nobility, and leftists ought not legitimate that, in my opinion. I certainly refuse to. When titles of nobility were abolished, Hayek, for one, had to drop his "von." I don't know the historical details of why the others retained them, nor do I care. Suffice it to say that I've stripped Mises, and the rest, of their pretentious, elitist, ruling-class identifiers for my own usage, and you should, too.

[Dean]

Hey man, I am just trying to get him to drop the term "Misean economics."

Anyways, most Austrians claim socialism is when there is public/government ownership over the means of production. Not as anything that opposes Austrian economics.

Oh really? Please give me an example of a contradictory mode of production from Austrian economics that is neither blamed on the "public" nor the "state."

It's actually quite simple, your ideology. You believe in lordship over property, and the denigration of all human labor into property, in order to distance and section off the human animal from the rest of his/her species. It's incredibly crude, unrealistic and reliant on human antagonism rather than what has consistently provided humans with advanced modes of social and economic existence - that is socialization.

[Skooma Addict]

I normally bow out after a warning, but I think it's important to explain this to Olaf and his comrades:

The term "Austrian economics" is problematic for those of us who understand that the good people of Austria are, in the main, not reactionary right-wing extremists bent on perpetuating -- and exacerbating -- the enslavement of the great majority of humanity. I, for one, cannot use that term without flinching. While I happen not to be Austrian, as a leftist I am capable of human empathy, and so I feel for those Austrians who would prefer not to be tarred with such a vile brush. Suppose Mussolini had dubbed his political system "Italian politics"; does anyone here (aside from the restricted members) have a heart so black and cold that s/he could refer to a group of skinheads as "Italians" without wincing in empathy with their actual Italian friends?

So then, what to call these so-called "Austrians" [sic]? One relatively widespread alternative is "psychological schoolers"; but that's not very catchy. It seems reasonable to name a school after its leading thinker, as with Marxism. But who is the leading "thinker" in this case? Is it the founder, Menger? Most "psychological schoolers" would probably not think so. Bohm-Bawerk is important there, but still relatively minor. Skipping ahead, Hayek, as any honest "psychological schooler" will concede, is far too heretical for the mantle. Then there's Rothbard, but, again, I think any sincere "psychological schooler" must admit that Rothbard was a second-rate thinker in comparison to any of the other candidates -- and besides, he was American, which takes the shine off him, somehow. The only realistic candidate left is the big man himself, Mises. And it's only fitting, given that the institute named for him is the leading voice of the "psychological school," for better or worse. From a purely academic standpoint, his books are absolutely canonical and on a level with Marx's within their respective schools of thought.

So there you have it: the so-called "Austrian school" [sic] is best referred to as the "Misesian school" [Pronounced: miz-EEZ-ian] (I too have a problem with "Misean," on grammatical grounds). Whether or not one considers Mises any more to be relevant, he is irrefutably the ideological father of the "psychological school" of economics, notwithstanding Menger.

Like it or lump it. I'm not going to call you an "Austrian," and I don't think anyone else should, either.

P.S. No one should use "von" when referring to Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, Hayek, et al. In the literal sense it simply means "from," but it came to signify nobility, and leftists ought not legitimate that, in my opinion. I certainly refuse to. When titles of nobility were abolished, Hayek, for one, had to drop his "von." I don't know the historical details of why the others retained them, nor do I care. Suffice it to say that I've stripped Mises, and the rest, of their pretentious, elitist, ruling-class identifiers for my own usage, and you should, too.This makes no sense. Your objection to calling it the Austrian School doesn't cut it at all. The fact that it personally upsets you is of no concern to me. Anyways, Mises did not invent his own school of economics. He was following a tradition which began with Menger. Hayek certainly isn't "too heretical." The school that Mises belonged to existed long before Mises entered the scene. So you can call it something else, but Misean economics just doesn't make sense. Ill stick with Austrian.


Oh really? Please give me an example of a contradictory mode of production from Austrian economics that is neither blamed on the "public" nor the "state."
You mean a mode of production that isn't public or private? Idk. Mutualism maybe? Idk much about mutualism though, so I am not sure. But anyways, nobody thinks it is socialism if the state exists and controls part of the means of production. There must be far more control.

[anticap]

This makes no sense. Your objection to calling it the Austrian School doesn't cut it at all. The fact that it personally upsets you is of no concern to me.

My objection goes beyond the personal (which is in fact almost inconsequential), as you would have gleaned, had you read my post and comprehended it.

An "Austrian" is a person from Austria. If I hereby pull a school of dance out of my ass and dub it "The American School," it would be quite ridiculous for international fans of my new dance to refer to themselves as "Americans."


Anyways, Mises did not invent his own school of economics. He was following a tradition which began with Menger.

I addressed the lineage of your wretched school (as a former disciple, I'm possibly better versed in it than you are), and gave my reasons for choosing Mises as its figurehead. I defy you to suggest a better one. No doubt, you will deny that the Misesian school works that way, preferring instead to pretend that it's more like anarchism, which abhors "peopleism"; but that's just more of the same old Rothbardian entryism, which anarchists saw through long ago. No, the right-wing worldview is inherently "peopleist," far more so than the Left, which, despite it's adoption of such terms, it does with self-conscious, squirming reluctance. The Right, on the other hand, has an ancient and proud history of "Great Man" idolatry. This name-change couldn't be more appropriate. :)


Hayek certainly isn't "too heretical."

That would depend which Misesian you ask. The less dogmatic ones (relatively speaking, of course!) accept him, but others consider him a borderline leftist (I think this may be the only place where you and I can guffaw in unison).


The school that Mises belonged to existed long before Mises entered the scene.

Again, I already addressed this, and why it is ultimately irrelevant: Mises is the high priest of his school, and this is widely conceded.


So you can call it something else, but Misean economics just doesn't make sense. Ill stick with Austrian.

"Misean economics" doesn't make much sense, I agree. But "Misesian economics" makes perfect sense. And fortunately, there's really no need for me to make a sales pitch here, since the term (under one spelling or the other) is already catching on, and not just here at RevLeft, but all over. People understand that the term "Austrian economics" does a great disservice to the Austrian people. You can stick with whatever you like, of course, but be warned: I have no intention of taking for granted any longer that "Austrian economics" means anything other than the economic policy of the state of Austria.

At any rate, I'm pleased. :) The frantic tone of your response was palpable. I really struck a nerve, and that tells me that I am absolutely on the right path. I hereby dub thee, always and forever (until we reeducate you and drag you away from the dark side and into the light of human solidarity and freedom): Olaf the Misesian.

[Skooma Addict]

I addressed the lineage of your wretched school (as a former disciple, I'm possibly better versed in it than you are), and gave my reasons for choosing Mises as its figurehead. I defy you to suggest a better one. No doubt, you will deny that the Misesian school works that way, preferring instead to pretend that it's more like anarchism, which abhors "peopleism"; but that's just more of the same old Rothbardian entryism, which anarchists saw through long ago. No, the right-wing worldview is inherently "peopleist," far more so than the Left, which, despite it's adoption of such terms, it does with self-conscious, squirming reluctance. The Right, on the other hand, has an ancient and proud history of "Great Man" idolatry. This name-change couldn't be more appropriate. :)

To most people Hayek was more of a figurehead. You just can't classify the school by one figurehead. It doesn't work in the same way it doesn't work for neoclassical economics.



Again, I already addressed this, and why it is ultimately irrelevant: Mises is the high priest of his school, and this is widely conceded.

He is recognized as an economist who made quite a few advancements. He is not the God of the Austrian school.


And fortunately, there's really no need for me to make a sales pitch here, since the term (under one spelling or the other) is already catching on, and not just here at RevLeft, but all over.

I haven't noticed it catching on at all. At least not among people who actually know the subject of economics. They would not try to reduce the entire Austrian school to one person.


At any rate, I'm pleased. :) The frantic tone of your response was palpable. I really struck a nerve, and that tells me that I am absolutely on the right path. I hereby dub thee, always and forever (until we reeducate you and drag you away from the dark side and into the light of human solidarity and freedom): Olaf the Misesian.

Well anything can be a frantic tone depending on how you read it (in other words, if you want it to be frantic). And no, you are on the complete wrong path. Even by your own logic, the school would better be called the Hayekian school (which is still stupid). He did win the Nobel Prize after all.

So you are calling me a Misesian even though there are other economists of the same tradition who I follow more closely. That is just misleading. According to your logic Hayek was a Misesian. It just makes no sense.

[Dean]

You mean a mode of production that isn't public or private? Idk. Mutualism maybe? Idk much about mutualism though, so I am not sure. But anyways, nobody thinks it is socialism if the state exists and controls part of the means of production. There must be far more control.
Uhm, actually, a fuckload of people think that socialism is defined by state interference in any given industry. I have learned this through 8 years of discussions with libertarians, largely Misean, over the net.

In reference to mutualism, does it exist contrary to libertarianism? I think so, if it really demands some egalitarian organization when it comes to the market. But its really not clear, and its never been clear, and frankly I think its because most mutualists rely on propertarianism but can see that the stark free market is incredibly contradictory to human dignity. Typically, they have no idea what to do about it, and so you get people like hayenmill with incredibly weird rhetoric about "the free-market but anti-capitalism" (?) or people like a former revlefter who spoke at length about how mutualism was a rational leftist theory, but also didn't seem to be able to piece it together.

As usual, you guys are heavily idealist, specifically focused on the extreme empowerment of the potential of the individual, but only in terms of what can be allowed of a person - not what modes of social organization actually empower human labor.

Of course it is this immaterial attitude which hobbles the whole milieu, and hence any reasoned discussion meant to expose what in God's name is being said.

[Skooma Addict]

Uhm, actually, a fuckload of people think that socialism is defined by state interference in any given industry. I have learned this through 8 years of discussions with libertarians, largely Misean, over the net.

By "nobody" I was referring to adherents of AE. And in truth there are probably some people who have a crappy definition of socialism, but it is not a large percentage. I have not seen many people who define socialism as any form of govt interference in the economy. Even the Tea protester people don't use that definition.



As usual, you guys are heavily idealist, specifically focused on the extreme empowerment of the potential of the individual, but only in terms of what can be allowed of a person - not what modes of social organization actually empower human labor.

Of course it is this immaterial attitude which hobbles the whole milieu, and hence any reasoned discussion meant to expose what in God's name is being said.

uh, what? I am a materialist.

[Drace]

By "nobody" I was referring to adherents of AE. And in truth there are probably some people who have a crappy definition of socialism, but it is not a large percentage. I have not seen many people who define socialism as any form of govt interference in the economy. Even the Tea protester people don't use that definition.

BULLSHIT.
The definition of socialism is so deranged in the US that apparently Obama qualifies as one.

[Dean]

By "nobody" I was referring to adherents of AE. And in truth there are probably some people who have a crappy definition of socialism, but it is not a large percentage. I have not seen many people who define socialism as any form of govt interference in the economy. Even the Tea protester people don't use that definition.
What does this even mean? How can you be so pretentious to claim that "the tea protestor people don't..."? I also doubt that they generally do, but that's because they're economic conservatives, not libertarians.

When you say "adherents of AE," that's who I was talking about. You may think that they aren't adherents if they don't follow your specific paradigm, but that doesn't mean anything to those who call themselves that and do, indeed define things on such arbitrary lines. There is no official Austrian line.


uh, what? I am a materialist.
Perhaps insofar as I am a nuclear chemist. :rolleyes:

[Klaatu]

Wikipedia is only reliable if it is backed up by legitimate sources. Wikipedia by itself is not a reliable source.
Well usually there are references given at the end of an article.



I am not a misean, nor am I knowledgeable of "misean economics". Proceed with the discussion or stop trying to focus on meaningless details.
Fair enough. So what is your ideology?



What the hell? You made the accusation, you back it up.
Again, fair enough. I should not have accused you, right off the bat,
of being such a dreamer as "LeftSideDown" without more discussion
on the matter at hand.



This is akin to me claiming unicorns exist and demand that YOU, who probably doesnt believe in them, prove they exist.

See the analogy?
No I don't. This does not even make sense.

[Left-Reasoning]

The term "Austrian economics" is problematic for those of us who understand that the good people of Austria are, in the main, not reactionary right-wing extremists bent on perpetuating -- and exacerbating -- the enslavement of the great majority of humanity.

Austrian Economics is value-free. There is nothing reactionary about it.


I, for one, cannot use that term without flinching. While I happen not to be Austrian, as a leftist I am capable of human empathy, and so I feel for those Austrians who would prefer not to be tarred with such a vile brush. Suppose Mussolini had dubbed his political system "Italian politics"; does anyone here (aside from the restricted members) have a heart so black and cold that s/he could refer to a group of skinheads as "Italians" without wincing in empathy with their actual Italian friends?

The Austrian Economists did not name themselves so. The name was originally given by the German Historical School as an insult. As in, "You are just backwater hillbilly Austrians, not real intellectuals like us Germans." The name just happened to stick.

[anticap]

Austrian Economics is value-free.

There is no such thing.


There is nothing reactionary about it.

It is built from the ground up as a system of capitalist apologetics.


The Austrian Economists did not name themselves so. The name was originally given by the German Historical School as an insult. As in, "You are just backwater hillbilly Austrians, not real intellectuals like us Germans." The name just happened to stick.

Here, try this:


Suppose [some enemy of] Mussolini had dubbed his political system "Italian politics" [as an insult]; does anyone here (aside from the restricted members) have a heart so black and cold that s/he could refer to a group of skinheads as "Italians" without wincing in empathy with their actual Italian friends?

Notice that my point still stands? Good.

P.S. Why are you not restricted?

[Klaatu]

BULLSHIT.
The definition of socialism is so deranged in the US that apparently Obama qualifies as one.

Sad but true.

This is so unfortunate. If people really understood the true meaning of the
term "socialism" they might not harbor such vehement opposition to the idea.

Truth is that, their minds have been hopelessly brain-washed by pseudo-socialists
such as Hitler and Stalin, etc. These dictators were not socialist. They were
dictators. They were totalitarian. They were counterfeit socialists. Phonys.
They were FAKE. They were panderers and liars. Not to mention murderers.

Totalitarian is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what socialism is! Socialism is "of the people."
THE PEOPLE! Get it, you stupid myopic capitalists? Socialism serves YOU.
Capitalism STEALS from you. Theft! Understand?

Geeez what will it take to un-brainwash millions of so-called capitalists?
How can we make them understand that they are being fooled?

[Left-Reasoning]

There is no such thing.

Comrade, 2 + 2 = 4. This is true whether you yourself are a reactionary or a socialist. In the same way, economics is what it is regardless of whoever happens to be its proponent.


It is built from the ground up as a system of capitalist apologetics.Austrian Economics is simply the use of deductive logic applied to economic phenomena. What the politics of the proponents of this system's ideology is is completely irrelevant.

We would not declare a particular law of biology as being false simply because it was first recorded by a capitalist.


Notice that my point still stands? Good.Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Wieser, Mises, Hayek, etc. All came from the geographic area known as Austria and studied/taught at the university of Vienna.

In the same way there exists "American Economics" and "Chicago Economics". And there were the "Greek Philosophers".


P.S. Why are you not restricted?Why would I be restricted? Does one have to advocate Marxian Economics to be a revolutionary leftist?

Surely he who supports the abolition of all hierarchy, especially the destruction of capitalism, a proponent of equality and tolerance and supporter of the working man against his usurious exploiters qualifies as a leftist.

[anticap]

This is so unfortunate.

Indeed. But it will never change as long as capitalists control the channels of information (schools, media, etc.).

Simply put, socialism is people-power. It is workers enjoying the full fruits of their labors. It is virulent opposition to elitism. It is everything the people claim to support. Then why don't they have it? Because capitalists control the channels of information. They tell the people that these noble aspirations are best pursued via economic feudalism (a.k.a. "capitalism"), and that socialism represents gulags, famines, etc., the very opposite of what every socialist text has ever advocated. But the people never learn this... because capitalists control the channels of information.

I've taken flak for it, but I'm a big advocate of home schooling. (And militias, but that's another thread.) These are not "right-wing" ideas, they're people-power ideas. That the people exercising them tend to identify with reactionaries ought not surprise anyone, given that the Left has completely given over these avenues of people-power without so much as a whimper. In fact, most of the Lest seems eager to distance themselves from these people-power ideas! This has been a grave mistake. I want to see leftist schools. I want to see a whole generation come of age taking it for granted that capitalism is exploitative and that private ownership of public needs is immoral. Does anyone think this is ever going to happen by attending parent-teacher conferences at their kids' capitalist indoctrination center? As the religious-right fumes over the "liberalization" of public schools, there's one subject that is absolutely not open for discussion, and it's the most important one of all. Teaching kids that race is nonsense and that girls can do anything boys can do is all well and good, but it won't bring us a single step closer to abolishing private property. For that, we need to teach kids to question the unquestionable, and that means home schooling. Ironically, we could stand to learn a thing or two from the religious fundies. They know that the days of teaching Young-Earth Creationism in public schools are over, or at least extremely limited. So they've taken the initiative to indoctrinate their kids at home. (Don't let that word scare you: all education is indoctrination; the only question is whether one is being indoctrinated with the truth or not.) Ironically, we're in a similar predicament: the public schools (read: state schools; read: capitalist schools) are never going to teach that Marx was right about their system. It's not enough to instill these sentiments after school, since the opposition is indoctrinating them at school. We need to change the curriculum, and that can never happen through "official" channels. There seems to be a kneejerk reaction against this among the Left, as though to abandon "public" school (a misnomer, really) and all the progress made there (within the limited scope that is permitted) is to take a step backward. I'm sympathetic to that, but if we can't get to our destination from here, then what should we do? go on subjecting one generation after another to capitalist nonsense? In the name of what?

I'm rambling again. Time to dismiss this agorist asshat...

[anticap]

Comrade

I'm not your comrade.


2 + 2 = 4. This is true whether you yourself are a reactionary or a socialist.

It's also a piss-poor analogy for "Misesian economics."


In the same way, economics is what it is regardless of whoever happens to be its proponent.

You haven't got a clue what economics is. Link pending... Edit: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/commodityfetishism.htm


Austrian Economics is simply the use of deductive logic applied to economic phenomena. What the politics of the proponents of this system's ideology is is completely irrelevant.

Looks like we disagree. But, we already knew that.


We would not declare a particular law of biology as being false simply because it was first recorded by a capitalist.

We might, if he went in search of it with the sole aim of refuting some other "law" that proved problematic to his worldview. Oh and, if it turned out to be abject nonsense.

But of course, this is another piss poor analogy, even (especially) according to your own Misesian school. (You know, the whole "economics is not science" thingy.)


Menger, Bohm-Bawerk, Wieser, Mises, Hayek, etc. All came from the geographic area known as Austria and studied/taught at the university of Vienna.

Who gives a fuck? They don't represent Austrians any more than Marx represents Germans.


In the same way there exists "American Economics" and "Chicago Economics". And there were the "Greek Philosophers".

And yet another piss-poor analogy. We don't call advocates of "American Economics" "Americans" so as to risk conflating them with American citizens in general; nor do we call advocates of "Chicago Economics" "Chicagoans" so as to risk conflating them with natives of Chicago; nor do we call the ancient Greek Philosophers simply "Greeks" so as to conflate them with the Greek people as a whole. Is any of this getting through?


Why would I be restricted?

Because you advocate slavery under another guise.


Does one have to advocate Marxian Economics to be a revolutionary leftist?

No, but one does have to love bunnies...

(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")


Surely he who supports the abolition of all hierarchy, especially the destruction of capitalism, a proponent of equality and tolerance and supporter of the working man against his usurious exploiters qualifies as a leftist.

Surely! But it is with equal surety that you support none of those things, but their direct opposites. I used to run in your circles, you see, so you can't pull one over on me. :(

[Havet]

Well usually there are references given at the end of an article.

Ok, but regarding the article of vehicle emissions control there is none I could find.


Fair enough. So what is your ideology?

To be honest, i'm not really sure. Somewhere between mutualism and agorism, with preference towards anarchism without adjectives.


No I don't. This does not even make sense.

The analogy was that you made a claim, and expected me to look it up whether it was true or not. In a way you were trying to push the burden-of-proof-ball to me. This is why i gave the example of unicorns.

[IcarusAngel]

Comrade, 2 + 2 = 4. This is true whether you yourself are a reactionary or a socialist. In the same way, economics is what it is regardless of whoever happens to be its proponent.

We would not declare a particular law of biology as being false simply because it was first recorded by a capitalist.

This shows you have no idea of what you're talking about. The theorems of biology could at best be said to be "very likely true," but never 100% truth. This is because all theorems of science are falsifiable and "facts" in science are never taken as 100% certain. In contrast, the axioms of mathematics are known to be true because of their uses.

So which is it? Is economics a science like biology or is it an a priori discipline, full of axioms that you do not show actually exist? Make up your minds.

This is the kind of nonsensical rhetoric these Austrians engage in to stay relevant, and here's your typical "Misean economist" nowadays:

h8DBxI38CDo

He and his dog - puddles - rant and rave about "elitists," the banking institutions, the "new world order" and so on, and he's actually one of your more articulate "Miseans." The other ones do nothing but make attack videos on "Keynesians" and each other (notice how they can't even come to an agreement on what their axioms are), such as Fringeelements and brainpolice2. For all we know this is hayenmill or left-reasoning (it actually kind of sounds like the stuff he says).

The Miseans a while ago decided to run around on forums promoting their cultish behavior and their god Ludwig Mises. They were banned from most forums except this one for some reason, bringing the entire level of discussion down to their level (and yes I'm guilty too of course). They should either present evidence for their economic beliefs, and why they believe what they do, or leave, instead of resulting to nonsensical "axioms."

By the way, the founder of the Mises Institute himself doesn't have a degree in economics or anything close, like statistics or mathematics, or political science. He isn't even qualified to work at McDonald's, let alone run a "think tank."

When Lew Rockwell gets off corporate welfare, and maybe gets himself a little part time job at McDonald's or Radioshack, I'll be glad to hear what he has to say about economics, until then I might as well be listening to puddles.

[Havet]

The other ones do nothing but make attack videos on "Keynesians" and each other (notice how they can't even come to an agreement on what their axioms are), such as Fringeelements and brainpolice2. For all we know this is hayenmill or left-reasoning (it actually kind of sounds like the stuff he says).

What is this supposed to mean?

[IcarusAngel]

In the same way there exists "American Economics" and "Chicago Economics". And there were the "Greek Philosophers".

American economics refers to all disciplines started in America, Chicago refers to the Chicago school of economics, and the Greek Philosophers included all Greek philosophers regardless of their beliefs. From establishment types like Plato, Aristotle, etc. to cynics such as Diogenes. So your analogy is not apt.

And what about Austrian politicians and economists who were Marxist or leftist?

Emil Lederer, 1882-1939.
·Rudolf Hilferding, 1877-1941.
·Otto Bauer, 1881-1938.
Max Adler , 1873-1937
Karl Renner, 1870-1950
Emil Lederer, 1882-1939.
Otto Neurath, 1882-1945

Why aren't they part of the "Austrian school" - they're more realistic economists.

"Misean school of economics" is appropriate, as that is who they/you worship and who the Mises institute is named after.

[Skooma Addict]

What does this even mean? How can you be so pretentious to claim that "the tea protestor people don't..."? I also doubt that they generally do, but that's because they're economic conservatives, not libertarians.

When you say "adherents of AE," that's who I was talking about. You may think that they aren't adherents if they don't follow your specific paradigm, but that doesn't mean anything to those who call themselves that and do, indeed define things on such arbitrary lines. There is no official Austrian line.


I know of no andehernt of Austrian economics who thinks that Obama is a socialist. We do not define a socialist as one who opposes Austrian economics as was claimed earlyer. Now, I am sure there are adherents of AE out there somewhere who think a socialist is anyone who disagrees with Mises. But that isn't a large percentage at all.


Perhaps insofar as I am a nuclear chemist. :rolleyes:

I am a materialist in the sense that I believe that the material world is all thre is. No kind of substance dualism. There is absolutely no reason whatsover for you to doubt that based on anything so far in this discussion.



There is no such thing.


Is physics value free?


Geeez what will it take to un-brainwash millions of so-called capitalists?
How can we make them understand that they are being fooled?

Stop making crappy arguments would be a good start.

Oh, and I am still waiting for someone to respond to these points.

1. What would you name the neoclassical school if you wanted to name it after their leading thinker?
2. According to your own logic, the Austrian school should be called the Hayekian school.
3. According to you, Hayek was a Misesian.

Do you guys notice how no actual economists refer to it as the Misesian school? Can you give me 1?

[Dean]

I know of no andehernt of Austrian economics who thinks that Obama is a socialist. We do not define a socialist as one who opposes Austrian economics as was claimed earlyer. Now, I am sure there are adherents of AE out there somewhere who think a socialist is anyone who disagrees with Mises. But that isn't a large percentage at all.
We should get off this point because its not very meaningful. Suffice it to say that my personal experiences have provided compelling proof that Austrians, including you, have no concept of various theories of social organization and historical development, rather entrenching yourself in the ideas of one or a few narrow ideologues (Mises & Co.).


I am a materialist in the sense that I believe that the material world is all thre is. No kind of substance dualism. There is absolutely no reason whatsover for you to doubt that based on anything so far in this discussion.
You've consistently and categorically rejected all analysis of extant material conditions in terms of economic theory, rather focusing on vague idealisms in order to prove why propertarianism is decent from a moralist standpoint.

[Skooma Addict]

We should get off this point because its not very meaningful. Suffice it to say that my personal experiences have provided compelling proof that Austrians, including you, have no concept of various theories of social organization and historical development, rather entrenching yourself in the ideas of one or a few narrow ideologues (Mises & Co.).

Or the more likely scenario is that you don't know what you are talking about and you just believe what is most convinient for you. Yes we should get off this point.


You've consistently and categorically rejected all analysis of extant material conditions in terms of economic theory, rather focusing on vague idealisms in order to prove why propertarianism is decent from a moralist standpoint.

What? Nowhere have I rejected materialism. You must not comprehend materialism.

[Dean]

Or the more likely scenario is that you don't know what you are talking about and you just believe what is most convinient for you. Yes we should get off this point.



What? Nowhere have I rejected materialism. You must not comprehend materialism.

You haven't rejected the fundamental point of materialism. But you have employed a consistent rejection of analysis of material conditions, which is just the same really.

It's like saying "I believe in God but he does nothing and represents no consequence in anyone's life." Its an empty gesture to call yourself materialist and then categorically dismiss any exercise in material analysis of systems.

[Skooma Addict]

You haven't rejected the fundamental point of materialism. But you have employed a consistent rejection of analysis of material conditions, which is just the same really.

It's like saying "I believe in God but he does nothing and represents no consequence in anyone's life." Its an empty gesture to call yourself materialist and then categorically dismiss any exercise in material analysis of systems.

Are we using the same definition of materialism? The materialism I am referring to is synonemous with physicalism. The kind of materialism that Dennett defends.

By the way, maybe you could answer this...

1. What would you name the neoclassical school if you wanted to name it after their leading thinker?
2. According to your own logic, the Austrian school should be called the Hayekian school.
3. According to you, Hayek was a Misesian.

Do you guys notice how no actual economists refer to it as the Misesian school? Can you give me 1?

[Left-Reasoning]

I'm not your comrade.

Are we not brothers in our fight to overthrow the ruling class?


You haven't got a clue what economics is. Link pending... Edit: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~rgibson/commodityfetishism.htm (http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/%7Ergibson/commodityfetishism.htm)

Catallactics is the praxeological (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praxeology) theory of the way the free market system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_market_system) reaches exchange ratios (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exchange_ratio) and prices (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price).


We might, if he went in search of it with the sole aim of refuting some other "law" that proved problematic to his worldview. Oh and, if it turned out to be abject nonsense.

If you could disprove it through the use of logic or incontrovertible empirical facts, then yes. But do not simply call the proponent a reactionary and then dismiss it.


Who gives a fuck? They don't represent Austrians any more than Marx represents Germans.

There was also a German Historical School but they were genereally referred to as Historicists and not Germans.


And yet another piss-poor analogy. We don't call advocates of "American Economics" "Americans" so as to risk conflating them with American citizens in general;

Generally not, no.


nor do we call advocates of "Chicago Economics" "Chicagoans" so as to risk conflating them with natives of Chicago;

Actually, they are referred to as Chicagoites.


nor do we call the ancient Greek Philosophers simply "Greeks" so as to conflate them with the Greek people as a whole.

Actually, we do.


Because you advocate slavery under another guise.

Where did I do that, comrade?

[Left-Reasoning]

This shows you have no idea of what you're talking about.

How so?


The theorems of biology could at best be said to be "very likely true," but never 100% truth. This is because all theorems of science are falsifiable and "facts" in science are never taken as 100% certain. In contrast, the axioms of mathematics are known to be true because of their uses.

Indeed.


So which is it? Is economics a science like biology or is it an a priori discipline,

It is an aprioristic discipline that reveals truths like biology.


full of axioms that you do not show actually exist? Make up your minds.

Do you deny the law of diminishing marginal utility?


He and his dog - puddles - rant and rave about "elitists," the banking institutions, the "new world order" and so on, and he's actually one of your more articulate "Miseans." The other ones do nothing but make attack videos on "Keynesians" and each other (notice how they can't even come to an agreement on what their axioms are), such as Fringeelements and brainpolice2. For all we know this is hayenmill or left-reasoning (it actually kind of sounds like the stuff he says).

Ad hominem.


By the way, the founder of the Mises Institute himself doesn't have a degree in economics or anything close, like statistics or mathematics, or political science. He isn't even qualified to work at McDonald's, let alone run a "think tank."

Ad hominem.


When Lew Rockwell gets off corporate welfare, and maybe gets himself a little part time job at McDonald's or Radioshack, I'll be glad to hear what he has to say about economics, until then I might as well be listening to puddles.

Ad hominem.


Why do you keep resorting to ad hominems rather than try to disprove it through logic?

[Klaatu]

The analogy was that you made a claim, and expected me to look it up whether it was true or not. In a way you were trying to push the burden-of-proof-ball to me. This is why i gave the example of unicorns.

You would not be able to "look up" my analogy, because it was based upon
my personal experience. Yet it is easy to understand: Ideology A vs Ideology B.

Your making analogies of my analogies is what does not compute.

[Klaatu]

Stop making crappy arguments would be a good start.

That was not intended to be an "argument," par se, it was merely an attention-getter. (Got your attention - didn't it?)

[Dean]

Are we using the same definition of materialism? The materialism I am referring to is synonemous with physicalism. The kind of materialism that Dennett defends.
If "materialism" involves no serious analysis of material, than it is empty.


By the way, maybe you could answer this...

1. What would you name the neoclassical school if you wanted to name it after their leading thinker?
2. According to your own logic, the Austrian school should be called the Hayekian school.
3. According to you, Hayek was a Misesian.
This is meaningless. We call you Misean because you quote him, that's all. Take it as hyperbole, I don't care.

Just like Marx critiqued the "German" philosophy, however, so too is "Austrian" a mildly relevant term. Neither are actually very good.

You should just stick to neoclassical.

[Klaatu]

Ad hominem.



Ad hominem.



Ad hominem.


Why do you keep resorting to ad hominems rather than try to disprove it through logic?

I disagree. "Ad hominem" does not apply if what is said is true. For example,
if the man is unqualified, he is unqualified. Period. That is not necessarily
a malicious attack, par se. Now if he was called an asshole, a ratfink, or a
goofball, that would be considered ad hominem, because it represents a
crude attack on the person. And attacking a person's actions is not
ad hominem; only attacks on the man himself are.

We have all done an ad hominem on someone from time to time.

[IcarusAngel]

Yep, that's right. I wasn't responding to an argument, merely providing some background on the Mises institute and how many people there do not even have degrees in the subjects they talk about.

Here's another fact: There has never been one Misean axiom that has ever led to "truth" or has discredited the empirical evidence. Not one. People have gotten onto this and generally distance themselves from the Misean school.

[Havet]

You would not be able to "look up" my analogy, because it was based upon
my personal experience. Yet it is easy to understand: Ideology A vs Ideology B.

Your making analogies of my analogies is what does not compute.

How is your personal experience a statistical representation of the whole society?

[Skooma Addict]

If "materialism" involves no serious analysis of material, than it is empty.

You really don't know what you are talking about.


This is meaningless. We call you Misean because you quote him, that's all. Take it as hyperbole, I don't care.

Just like Marx critiqued the "German" philosophy, however, so too is "Austrian" a mildly relevant term. Neither are actually very good.

You should just stick to neoclassical.


You call me a Misean because I quote him? Lol, how pathetic. What you gave is what we call a non-answer. Again, using your own logic, you should call it the Hayekian school.

So I will ask again. If nobody can respond to these points, then I guess the debate is settled...

1. What would you name the neoclassical school if you wanted to name it after their leading thinker?
2. According to your own logic, the Austrian school should be called the Hayekian school.
3. According to you, Hayek was a Misesian.

[Skooma Addict]

I disagree. "Ad hominem" does not apply if what is said is true.

Yes it does.

[Dermezel]

Competition, by nature of its intensively profit-driven-character, will always be more efficient when it can provide greater profits to its ownership

Uh no. Consider when the USSR gave aid to China or Cuba. That increased the efficiency of those economies greatly. Capitalist countries do not do this because of competition.

Also competition generates huge amounts of waste. Advertisements, pollution. It tends to lead to short-term thinking.

Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptic's Society in his book The Science of Good and Evil, notes that too much competition tends to detract from group cohesion, leading to immoral/cheating behaviors which can upset the entire economy.

You really must mystify capitalism if you think competition is a sort of like magic formula for increasing efficiency. In fact I notice many of the most competitive people are often times very inefficient because their ego clouds their judgment. They are also very narrow minded, and not very objective.

Take someone who is not competitive at all- say someone like Mr. Spock. That guy is efficient. That guy is the exact opposite of competitive.

[Dean]

You really don't know what you are talking about.
I figured you thought that, you know, by nature of the fact that you're arguing with me. You're incredibly obtuse.




You call me a Misean because I quote him? Lol, how pathetic. What you gave is what we call a non-answer. Again, using your own logic, you should call it the Hayekian school.

So I will ask again. If nobody can respond to these points, then I guess the debate is settled...

1. What would you name the neoclassical school if you wanted to name it after their leading thinker?
2. According to your own logic, the Austrian school should be called the Hayekian school.
3. According to you, Hayek was a Misesian.

:rolleyes: The last post I made, of which the above is a response, was my first post about the issue of your terminology. I call you, read: you, a Misean because you follow the "rockstar" whom all other "Austrian" children follow. I couldn't care less about the specific nuances of your school, nor do I seriously concern myself with the naming issue.

Rather, I was trying to underline the incredible idiocy which you are engaged in and in fact attempting to provide you with a reasonable name (neoclassical) since it is the only one that does not have narrow implications (Hayekian or Misean) or unnecessary vagueness (Austrian).

Just quit whining about the naming issue. It really makes you look very pathetic.

[IcarusAngel]

That's true too. The smartest people I know are the least competitive, and vice versa.

You can also be in an extremely competitive field and still be non-competitive. Like if you're in mathematics at a prestigious university: there is competition, but certain individuals still work hard, tutor others, act as TAs, and generally getting their own intellectual fulfillment than shutting down others.

[Dean]

Uh no. Consider when the USSR gave aid to China or Cuba. That increased the efficiency of those economies greatly. Capitalist countries do not do this because of competition.

Also competition generates huge amounts of waste. Advertisements, pollution. It tends to lead to short-term thinking.

Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptic's Society in his book The Science of Good and Evil, notes that too much competition tends to detract from group cohesion, leading to immoral/cheating behaviors which can upset the entire economy.

You really must mystify capitalism if you think competition is a sort of like magic formula for increasing efficiency. In fact I notice many of the most competitive people are often times very inefficient because their ego clouds their judgment. They are also very narrow minded, and not very objective.

Take someone who is not competitive at all- say someone like Mr. Spock. That guy is efficient. That guy is the exact opposite of competitive.

You miss my point. Capitalism efficiently provides profit because those firms which can acquire more capital (more efficiency in acquiring profit) are in an enhanced position to acquire more market shares - via advertising, direct purchases, buyouts, and underpricing.

This refers to efficiency in finance capital. This thread (which you've replied in already) provides the clear boundaries between finance and production capital: http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-free-markets-t132366/index.html Greater efficiency in the former typically leads to eventual deficiency in terms of production.

[Dermezel]

I figured you thought that, you know, by nature of the fact that you're arguing with me. You're incredibly obtuse.





You're a fucking idiot. The last post I made, of which the above is a response, was my first post about the issue of your terminology. I call you, read: you, a Misean because you follow the "rockstar" whom all other "Austrian" children follow. I couldn't care less about the specific nuances of your school, nor do I seriously concern myself with the naming issue.

Rather, I was trying to underline the incredible idiocy which you are engaged in and in fact attempting to provide you with a reasonable name (neoclassical) since it is the only one that does not have narrow implications (Hayekian or Misean) or unnecessary vagueness (Austrian).

Just quit whining about the naming issue. It really makes you look very pathetic.

In the end they are all based on the concept of Marginal Utility which the theorists themselves admit is untestable:

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-aussm.htm

http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

http://en.allexperts.com/e/m/ma/marginalism.htm



Criticism of marginalism

Marginalism has been criticised for being extremely abstract, with even supporters of the concept describing "marginal utility" as "unobservable, unmeasurable and untestable". [1 (http://cepa.newschool.edu/het/essays/margrev/phases.htm)]

So you don't even have to like debate "terms" with a marginalist. They don't even have evidence. Their theory is like mysticism. It's like debating a voodoo doctor who criticizing surgery or something.

And yeah, I guess to get to your point, like maybe there are nuances between different kinds of voodoo doctors. Like some say to use a chicken feather, and others goat's blood.

But the fact of the matter is Marxism is testable- the law of centralization can be verified. The Iron Law of Wages was proven by multiple correlation studies before Marx was even born.

So we have a scientific theory vs. a mystical theory. The only reason you'd be a marginalist is because of lack of knowledge or bias.

[Dermezel]

You miss my point. Capitalism efficiently provides profit because those firms which can acquire more capital (more efficiency in acquiring profit) are in an enhanced position to acquire more market shares - via advertising, direct purchases, buyouts, and underpricing.


But you can attain surplus value without profit. In fact profit can even be negative for an economy, since merely transferring money=profit. So like I could profit by ruining the entire economy so long as I am able to walk out of it with some golden parachutes or kickbacks from whatever ponzi scheme I was leading. People don't realize it but capitalism is super-inefficient. And I mean ridiculously inefficient in some areas.

[Skooma Addict]

:rolleyes: The last post I made, of which the above is a response, was my first post about the issue of your terminology. I call you, read: you, a Misean because you follow the "rockstar" whom all other "Austrian" children follow. I couldn't care less about the specific nuances of your school, nor do I seriously concern myself with the naming issue.

Rather, I was trying to underline the incredible idiocy which you are engaged in and in fact attempting to provide you with a reasonable name (neoclassical) since it is the only one that does not have narrow implications (Hayekian or Misean) or unnecessary vagueness (Austrian).

Just quit whining about the naming issue. It really makes you look very pathetic.


The "rockstar" of AE would be Hayek, not Mises. You can't reduce AE to a single name for the same reason you can't with Neoclassical econ. AE is after all a branch of neoclassical econ. Your objection to not calling it AE doesn't cut it at all. What do we call members of the Chicago school?

I will "whine" until you can give me a satisfactory answer. At least answer this...

2. According to your own logic, the Austrian school should be called the Hayekian school.
3. According to you, Hayek was a Misesian.

[Dermezel]

The "rockstar" of AE would be Hayek, not Mises. You can't reduce AE to a single name for the same reason you can't with Neoclassical econ. AE is after all a branch of neoclassical econ. Your objection to not calling it AE doesn't cut it at all. What do we call members of the Chicago school?

I will "whine" until you can give me a satisfactory answer. At least answer this...

2. According to your own logic, the Austrian school should be called the Hayekian school.
3. According to you, Hayek was a Misesian.

Okay, look there are only two real theories in economics- Marxism and Marginalism. Keynesianism is really just a hybrid theory.

Marginalism claims that capital spreads out over time under market conditions. That is pretty thoroughly disproven. It also argues that the cost of production model is false because of Marginal Utility, a totally untestable pseudoscientific theory. They even admit it's untestable and think it is okay because heir weird philosophy says it is okay.

Marxism argues from the labor theory of value, a theory that was established before Karl Marx was even born by multiple correlation studies, and it claims that capital will centralize over time in market conditions- which is has.

Just look at these giant corporations, you know it has. Imagine if we got rid of anti-trust laws.

Now of course the libertarians say "That's not a TRUE (tm) free market, the government still exists!" Well they say is "still involved" but what they mean by that is the government exists, or exists in some way outside of their super-, restrictive mode that no government can ever follow. Like to do that they'd even have to stop regulating currency or not buy weapons, so no matter what a government is going to be involved in the economy.

But again this is what makes it untestable. That's a total ad hoc hypothesis, and those are signs of an argument's weakness in science. Marginalism, the Austrian school, Chicago school, it's hocus pocus. Like the same as someone who believe in magic or prayer.

[Left-Reasoning]

In respons to the "Misean" vs "Misesian" debate I came across the following from Walter Block:

"Personal interaction, debate, dialogue, too, are necessary. My scant evidence for this contention7 is that Carson (p. 134) characterizes his intellectual opponents as “Miseans,” not the correct “Misesians.” No one who has ever had any personal contact with advocates of this perspective would make this mistake; yet I have heard it, often, from those whose knowledge of the subject comes only from reading books. Perhaps this is only a typographical error. If not, it might have some explanatory value."

[Left-Reasoning]

Okay, look there are only two real theories in economics- Marxism and Marginalism. Keynesianism is really just a hybrid theory.

Comrade, that is a false dichotomy. The correct dichotomy is the following: There are subjectivists and there are intrinsicists.

Men dive for pearls because they are valuable. Pearls are not valuable because men dive for them. The subjectivists are clearly correct here.


Marginalism claims that capital spreads out over time under market conditions.

It does? Where does the doctrine of marginalism say anything of the sort?


It also argues that the cost of production model is false because of Marginal Utility, a totally untestable pseudoscientific theory. They even admit it's untestable and think it is okay because heir weird philosophy says it is okay.

What do you think the "Marginal Utility theory" is?


Marxism argues from the labor theory of value, a theory that was established before Karl Marx was even born by multiple correlation studies, and it claims that capital will centralize over time in market conditions- which is has.

I never knew that was what the labor theory of value was. I was under the impression that was that claim that a good's value was determined by sunk costs.


Just look at these giant corporations, you know it has. Imagine if we got rid of anti-trust laws.

What does this have to do with marginalism?

[Left-Reasoning]

The "rockstar" of AE would be Hayek, not Mises.

Rothbard would disagree.

[Left-Reasoning]

I disagree. "Ad hominem" does not apply if what is said is true.

Whether Lew Rockwell is a homophobic racist bigot or not does not prove anything about the validity of Austrian Economics.

[Chambered Word]

Uh no. Consider when the USSR gave aid to China or Cuba. That increased the efficiency of those economies greatly. Capitalist countries do not do this because of competition.

Also competition generates huge amounts of waste. Advertisements, pollution. It tends to lead to short-term thinking.

Michael Shermer, director of the Skeptic's Society in his book The Science of Good and Evil, notes that too much competition tends to detract from group cohesion, leading to immoral/cheating behaviors which can upset the entire economy.

You really must mystify capitalism if you think competition is a sort of like magic formula for increasing efficiency. In fact I notice many of the most competitive people are often times very inefficient because their ego clouds their judgment. They are also very narrow minded, and not very objective.

Take someone who is not competitive at all- say someone like Mr. Spock. That guy is efficient. That guy is the exact opposite of competitive.

The Following User Says Thank You to Dermezel For This Useful Post: Comrade Lewis

Mostly for the Mr Spock analogy.

[Skooma Addict]

Rothbard would disagree.

Correct. But 99% of the other economists would agree.

[Left-Reasoning]

Correct. But 99% of the other economists would agree.

Correct.

[Klaatu]

How is your personal experience a statistical representation of the whole society?

I never said it was. It is only a personal experience of mine. Where do I claim that my analogy is a "statistic?"

What is your null hypothesis on this? Can this be tested?

[Klaatu]

Yes it does.

So if I say a criminal is a "bad guy," that is ad homenim? Who cares?

[Klaatu]

The Following User Says Thank You to anticap For This Useful Post: Comrade Lewis

Mostly for the Mr Spock analogy.

I second that thank you. Brilliant! :thumbup1:

[Dean]

The "rockstar" of AE would be Hayek, not Mises. You can't reduce AE to a single name for the same reason you can't with Neoclassical econ. AE is after all a branch of neoclassical econ. Your objection to not calling it AE doesn't cut it at all. What do we call members of the Chicago school?

I will "whine" until you can give me a satisfactory answer. At least answer this...

2. According to your own logic, the Austrian school should be called the Hayekian school.
No, it should be called a neoclassical school.


3. According to you, Hayek was a Misesian.
Did he quote Mises and form his ideology around his ideas? no. But you, and others like you did. Hence you are Misean, the same way one can be freudian and niezchean [sic]. Marx's ideological tendency was present before he existed, that doesn't make older thinkers Marxists, but it does make those who self-profess to be Marxists Marxist.

Your criticisms are incredibly childish, narrow, and its is absolutely ludicrous to focus on naming schematics as some focal point for your arguments.

Really, get the fuck over yourself.

[LeftSideDown]

First of all, any graph that shows per capita stuff does'nt intrest me, just because a country has more wealth does'nt mean its citizens are better off. Study after study has shown that poverty rates are much lower in the Nordic countries, the economy more stable, jobs more secure, working conditions better.

I'd like to see these studies if you can find them. Besides that, in general people living in richer countries are better off. Compare USA vs Ethiopia. Compare Japan vs Nigeria. There may be specific counter examples, but a general trend exists. I'd much rather be poor in the US/Japan/Great Britain even if they had no social programs than most places in Africa (which are generally very poor).


I don't advocate heavy taxation/government welfare, what I advocate is democratic control over the economy, whatever way it can come.

What makes you think democratic control is better?

"In fact, this policy of shutting down factories seems to have been as important to the CNT program as collectivizing the remainder. These factory closures were justified by several arguments: they were unhealthy for workers, or unhealthy for consumers, or just plain "inefficient." As Bolloten explains, "after the first few weeks of widespread and uncoordinated seizures, some of the unions began a systematic reorganization of entire trades, closing down hundreds of small plants and concentrating production in those with the best equipment."[35] It is worth noting that Spain was still in the midst of the Great Depression, with overall Spanish industrial production in 1935 about 13% below the 1929 level. Production in July of 1936 was itself about 18% below the January 1936 level, so the existence of unused capacity is no surprise.[36] What is odd is that in the midst of massive unemployment the Anarchists closed down a large percentage of the remaining firms instead of inviting unemployed workers to join them."


I'm saying INDIVIDUAL wealth has nothing to do with INDIVIDUAL productivity.

What is society if not made up of a bunch of individuals? Start discounting them and you discount society. And I really don't understand. Someone's past wealth or wealth-producing capacity? Obviously in the case of inheritance wealth and productivity don't correlate, but in the case of a factory worker today against a farmer 200 years ago productivity goes hand in hand with wealth or at least an increase in the standard of living.


Also they would'nt be cared for in a free-market, because there is no incentives to care for them, they don't have disposable income, theres no incentive to sell cheap food or housing because the profit margin is much smaller, the market would just let them die because they don't have any demand power (i.e. money), and the supply would be better off serving the real demand (those with money).

There is an incentive. People don't like seeing other people who are poor and suffering. There is a market for charity. People like giving, it makes them feel better/satisfaction/good. You don't have to have government to have charity, and its not charity if its enforced at the point of a gun anyway. All societies in the past have always had ways of caring for the poor; before private charities it was the church.


THAT is why Capitalist economies have welfare systems, beceause the market would literally kill off the poor.

Why are there so many charities in the US, even though the government is trying to destroy them with taxation, if capitalist economies want to kill of the poor? People are charitable in general and thus charities will exist, in general.


FIrst of all that 25% was that just the ANarchistic part of Spain? Or spain in total? Also how were those figures calculated? (Do they count people involved in an informal economy? Those who took control over a factory? So on and so forth).

Initially, the workers (rather than an Anarchist nomenklatura) usually assumed control over their places of employment. Quoting Fraser, "one thing dominated the libertarian revolution: the practice of self- management - the workers' administration of their factories and industries."[37] Yet government control quickly followed, or at least tried to. In October, the government of Anarchist-dominated Catalonia passed the Collectivization and Workers' Control Decree, which legally recognized many of the de facto collectivizations.

With government recognition came government regulation, as Fraser indicates: "Works councils, elected by an assembly decision of the workers and representing all sectors of the enterprise, were to administer the collectivized factory, 'assuming the functions and responsibilities of the former board of directors.' A Generalitat representative was chosen, in agreement with the workers, to sit on each council. Collectivized enterprises (and private firms under workers' control) in each sector of industry would be represented in an Economic Federation, in turn topped by a general industrial council which would closely control the whole industry. Fifty percent of a collectivized firm's profit would go to an industrial and commercial credit fund which would have to finance all Catalan industry; 20 per cent was to be put to the collective's reserve and depreciation fund; 15 per cent to the collective's social needs, and the remaining 15 per cent to be allocated by the workers as they decided in a general assembly."[38] Bolloten reports that this measure was "sponsored by the CNT and signed by its representative in the government, Juan P. Fabregas, the councilor of the economy."[39] Thus, the principle of genuine worker control was quickly cast aside in favor of something much more similar to state-socialism; a mere 15% of the profits were, under the law, under the discretionary control of the workers."

And:

The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the Spanish labor unions, of which the CNT was foremost, through their intransigent militancy and activism, succeeded in raising real wages approximately 20% from 1929 to 1936.[109] Tortella and Palafox's calculations reveal a 20.5% real wage increase in mining, a 17.6% increase in metallurgy, a 19.9% increase in textiles (22.3% for women), and a 23.7% increase in agriculture (35% increase for women) over the 1929-1936 period. In their ignorance of and emotional hostility to classical economic theory, the trade- unionists probably did not realize that the necessary consequence of pushing real wages so far above the market level would be massive unemployment; but massive unemployment was indeed the result. The mounting hostility to employers, sabotage, and so on undoubtedly decreased the expected marginal productivity of labor, leaving the prevailing union wage scale even farther above the market-clearing level.

And:

The situation was essentially similar to that of a modern law firm. If every novice lawyer and secretary became a full partner as soon as they were hired, there would be many unemployed novices and secretaries. The current partners would want to avoid diluting the value of their shares, and would therefore keep hiring to a minimum. Modern law firms solve this problem by accepting inequality as a fact of life; a share of the profits is reserved for the elite lawyers, and the other employees simply receive a comparatively small salary. Crippled by their egalitarian ethos, the worker-controlled firms of Anarchist Spain could not bring themselves to do this. In consequence, in spite of massive money supply growth and conscription, Catalonian unemployment (complete and partial, Fraser notes) increased from an index of 100 in January- June 1936 to 135.7 in December 1936, and fell slightly to 123.6 in June 1937, and 120.1 in November 1937.[119]

[119] There is some evidence that the worker controlled firms showed a slight interest in the unemployed workers, since complete unemployment fell by 10 percent while partial unemployment doubled. Still, considering the depression-level unemployment at the outset of the war, the massive money supply growth, and the presence of conscription, a mere 10 percent fall (not a 10 percentage-point fall) from high pre-war unemployment is truly abysmal performance.

[Havet]

I never said it was. It is only a personal experience of mine. Where do I claim that my analogy is a "statistic?"

You implied so:


You would not be able to "look up" my analogy, because it was based upon
my personal experience. Yet it is easy to understand: Ideology A vs Ideology B.

Why would you bother sharing your personal experience unless you thought that it was somehow a representation of a common phenomena in society?

[Klaatu]

Why would you bother sharing your personal experience unless you thought that it was somehow a representation of a common phenomena in society?

So it must be a proven statistic? :confused:

That's pretty anal, isn't it?

[LeftSideDown]

So it must be a proven statistic? :confused:

That's pretty anal, isn't it?

It won't have nearly the relevance if its not. And the claim is not able to be proven or falsified, so if our only criteria for truth was personal experience then the truth would be contradictory on so many levels it would be essentially meaningless and any kind of discourse or debate would serve no purpose.

[Havet]

So it must be a proven statistic? :confused:

That's pretty anal, isn't it?

What do you mean by anal?

Do you not agree that the scientific method is essential to the pursuit of truth? How has your personal experience relied on the scientific method?

[Klaatu]

It won't have nearly the relevance if its not. And the claim is not able to be proven or falsified, so if our only criteria for truth was personal experience then the truth would be contradictory on so many levels it would be essentially meaningless and any kind of discourse or debate would serve no purpose.

Oh Jezus... YOU AGAIN???

[RGacky3]

Why are there so many charities in the US, even though the government is trying to destroy them with taxation, if capitalist economies want to kill of the poor? People are charitable in general and thus charities will exist, in general.

That has nothing to do with the market, also charities are tax excempt moron.


Besides that, in general people living in richer countries are better off. Compare USA vs Ethiopia. Compare Japan vs Nigeria. There may be specific counter examples, but a general trend exists. I'd much rather be poor in the US/Japan/Great Britain even if they had no social programs than most places in Africa (which are generally very poor).

So what? So would I, Capitalism is global, so the poverty in Ethiopia is related to the wealth in the US.


What makes you think democratic control is better?

"In fact, this policy of shutting down factories seems to have been as important to the CNT program as collectivizing the remainder. These factory closures were justified by several arguments: they were unhealthy for workers, or unhealthy for consumers, or just plain "inefficient." As Bolloten explains, "after the first few weeks of widespread and uncoordinated seizures, some of the unions began a systematic reorganization of entire trades, closing down hundreds of small plants and concentrating production in those with the best equipment."[35] It is worth noting that Spain was still in the midst of the Great Depression, with overall Spanish industrial production in 1935 about 13% below the 1929 level. Production in July of 1936 was itself about 18% below the January 1936 level, so the existence of unused capacity is no surprise.[36] What is odd is that in the midst of massive unemployment the Anarchists closed down a large percentage of the remaining firms instead of inviting unemployed workers to join them."

The fact that there were problems in Anarchist spain does'nt proove that the alternative is better.

Democracy is better because it makes sense that when everyone gets a say, its more likely that things will be done fairly and in the best way, when onle a few get a say, it makes sense that it will be done for the benefit of those few, its pretty simple. Thats why the more democratic a government is teh more likely it is to protect the welfare and liberty if its citizens, the less democratic, the less likely.




As far as your critique on ANarchist spain, I'd like to see where you got it from.

[IcarusAngel]

He got it from the anarcho-capitalist hack Brian Caplan. (Apparently Miseans who beleive in intellectual property are free to steal the intellectual property of others.)

Here is a critique of it:

http://www.hack.org/mc/mirror/www.spunk.org/texts/places/spain/sp001532.html

[Left-Reasoning]

He got it from the "anarcho"-capitalist hack Bryan Caplan.

Fixed.


(Apparently Miseans who beleive in intellectual property are free to steal the intellectual property of others.)Bryan Caplan isn't an Austrian.

[LeftSideDown]

That has nothing to do with the market, also charities are tax excempt moron.

Are you asserting that charities wouldn't exist without tax-exempt status? You might want to rethink that statement.


So what? So would I, Capitalism is global, so the poverty in Ethiopia is related to the wealth in the US.

They are not necessarily related. Everywhere in the world was poor once, and some nations got rich, not even necessarily by even interacting with other nations. Connecting Ethiopia to the US because the US is wealthy and Ethiopia is as bad as a connection as birds to fish because they're both animals. One being a bird doesn't make the other a fish.


The fact that there were problems in Anarchist spain does'nt proove that the alternative is better.

Okay, so its an argument for me to say just because there are some problems with capitalism, that doesn't prove the alternative is better? Thats a pretty weak argument, imo.


Democracy is better because it makes sense that when everyone gets a say, its more likely that things will be done fairly and in the best way, when onle a few get a say, it makes sense that it will be done for the benefit of those few, its pretty simple. Thats why the more democratic a government is teh more likely it is to protect the welfare and liberty if its citizens, the less democratic, the less likely.

You're right. We'll just vote everyone rich. Thats how the economy works.


As far as your critique on ANarchist spain, I'd like to see where you got it from.

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

[IcarusAngel]

I meant LeftSideDown, for not posting the link or even the name "Bryan."

[Left-Reasoning]

I meant LeftSideDown, for not posting the link or even the name "Bryan."

But you forgot to include scare quotes around "anarcho". Also, you used an "i" instead of a "y" but that is a minor issue.

[LeftSideDown]

I meant LeftSideDown, for not posting the link or even the name "Bryan."


Okay? they are still voluntary charitable donations which I think is > government coerced taxes for the same purposes.



You're entitled to your opinion, I, however, would like to see poverty abolished not just extended (which is what socialism tends towards).



Yes, and I'm against all of it. Subsidies allow the companies to charge higher prices in general because the government makes up the slack (in terms of generating demand). People wouldn't starve in a free-market, but because of the government farmers are encouraged to grow more than is needed only for the government to absorb the excess supply because otherwise prices would drop.



If you could provide source(s) I'd appreciate, I don't know where to find such a comparison, all I know is that money was outlawed in Anarchic-Spain on pain of death. Also, I found this, which you might find interesting, although it is long and I won't pretend to have read all of it:

Thus, while it avoided the monetary contraction which plagued other nations in the early 30's, Spain enjoyed a depression courtesy of its militant labor unions, assisted by the labor laws of the Republican government. Disturbed by the plight of the workers, the unions and the government simple-mindedly tried to make matters better by pushing up wages and improving working conditions. The necessary and empirically observed result was massive unemployment; many workers were simply not worth the higher price, and so no one chose to hire them. Rather than blame the unions and the "pro-labor" government, many unemployed workers turned to ever greater militancy and hatred of the capitalist system.[112]

Perhaps the most plausible criticism of capitalist economies is that they sometimes allow useful labor and capital to go to waste. Under the circumstances, one might expect that the workers' revolutionary takeover of their employers' property in 1936 would have to make matters better. With all these idle workers seizing the empty factories, wouldn't production have to increase? It did not; after the establishment of worker control, unemployment became even more severe despite the wartime economy's massive monetary growth and conscription. The next section investigates this puzzle in detail.

Source: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/spain.htm

I like how you're too lazy to even look on the first page of this thread to find evidence for your claims. Great job Icarus.

[Klaatu]

This is akin to me, as a Catholic child, growing up in the 1960s, having
been advised not to associate with "those Protestants."

Do you see the analogy here?


Replying to hayenmill and LeftSideDown

I don't know why I'm wasting my valuable time arguing on this pointless subject.

Are you asking me to prove the analogy itself?

An analogy is what it is. It does not need backing-up, statistical proof, nor anything at all.

[LeftSideDown]

Replying to hayenmill and LeftSideDown

I don't know why I'm wasting my valuable time arguing on this pointless subject.

Are you asking me to prove the analogy itself?

An analogy is what it is. It does not need backing-up, statistical proof, nor anything at all.

Its not an analogy, its a personal anecdote, and you doubtless wouldn't have shared it unless you thought it was common to others as well. If I told a story about how, as a child, I was told to stay away from pink elephants because they have violent moodswings and tried to use it as proof that there exists prejudice against pink elephants, would you not find fault in my reasoning?

[Klaatu]

Its not an analogy, its a personal anecdote, and you doubtless wouldn't have shared it unless you thought it was common to others as well. If I told a story about how, as a child, I was told to stay away from pink elephants because they have violent moodswings and tried to use it as proof that there exists prejudice against pink elephants, would you not find fault in my reasoning?
Here we go again.

Personal anecdote or analogy: why would there be a reason to discredit an
illustrative point, regardless of what it is about? That makes no sense.
It would not matter if I was the only person in the world with such an
experience; it is the teaching point that counts, not the content as such.

Pink elephants don't exist. Therefore how COULD you use them in an "analogy."
That would be a "metaphor." Would you be happy if I call my
personal anecdote a "metaphor" instead of an analogy?

Fine so be it. It is a metaphor then. Happy now??? :rolleyes:

[LeftSideDown]

Here we go again.

Personal anecdote or analogy: why would there be a reason to discredit an
illustrative point, regardless of what it is about? That makes no sense.
It would not matter if I was the only person in the world with such an
experience; it is the teaching point that counts, not the content as such.

Pink elephants don't exist. Therefore how COULD you use them in an "analogy."
That would be a "metaphor." Would you be happy if I call my
personal anecdote a "metaphor" instead of an analogy?

Fine so be it. It is a metaphor then. Happy now??? :rolleyes:

Nono, mines not a metaphor or analogy. Thats a personal anecdote. That was an experience I had as a child. Are you trying to discredit my story by saying that pink elephants don't exist? Do you want me to prove they do?

http://thelanguageoflight.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/pink_elephant.jpg

[Klaatu]

Thanks for posting your picture. Now we know what you look like.

PS don't let those birds shit on your back :p

[Havet]

Thanks for posting your picture. Now we know what you look like.

PS don't let those birds shit on your back :p

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant_(pachyderm)

"...their skin is normally a soft reddish-brown, turning a light pink when wet..."

[Klaatu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant_(pachyderm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_elephant_%28pachyderm))

"...their skin is normally a soft reddish-brown, turning a light pink when wet..."

Thanks for your scientific insight :)

I still say that analogies (and especially metaphors) are word-tools.

Consider the word "analog." (Analogy without the Y) Analog is a representation.
It does not have to be an accurate one either, although that is the ideal.

[LeftSideDown]

Thanks for your scientific insight :)

I still say that analogies (and especially metaphors) are word-tools.

Consider the word "analog." (Analogy without the Y) Analog is a representation.
It does not have to be an accurate one either, although that is the ideal.

The fact is there is no way to verify that:
1) your experience is not facetious.
2) that is common to others and not simply an anomaly.

If there is a way to verify that it is common to others this is where the source that HayenMill requested comes in.

[Klaatu]

The fact is there is no way to verify that:
1) your experience is not facetious.
2) that is common to others and not simply an anomaly.

I was not trying to make a joke.


If there is a way to verify that it is common to others this is where the source that HayenMill requested comes in.

Do you suppose there is no religious intolerence in the world? Are you asking me to prove there is? Perhaps you can prove there is not???

[LeftSideDown]

I was not trying to make a joke.


Do you suppose there is no religious intolerence in the world? Are you asking me to prove there is? Perhaps you can prove there is not???

You asserted it first. I'm not saying there isn't, I'm just trying to tell you what Hayenmill's point was, which still seems to evade you. Let me try to illustrate again.

1)I was little and my parents told me pigs could fly.
2)Therefore pigs can fly.

Obviously there needs to be more evidence than a childhood anecdote. That is my only point. I'm not taking any stance on whether or not your anecdote is true or whether its larger point is true. I'm merely trying to illustrate that it is NOT enough for a formal debate.

[Klaatu]

You asserted it first. I'm not saying there isn't, I'm just trying to tell you what Hayenmill's point was, which still seems to evade you. Let me try to illustrate again.

1)I was little and my parents told me pigs could fly.
2)Therefore pigs can fly.

Obviously there needs to be more evidence than a childhood anecdote. That is my only point. I'm not taking any stance on whether or not your anecdote is true or whether its larger point is true. I'm merely trying to illustrate that it is NOT enough for a formal debate.

I think both of you entirely miss the point. The point is that, there is racism, mistrust, and intolerance in the world. Even a child knows that.

That is the issue at hand. I am sorry you do not see this. :confused:

Maybe you try too hard to overanalyze things when you should take them at face-value?

[LeftSideDown]

I'm not denying this point. How many times do I have to say it? I'm not going to restate why Hayenmill was objecting, if you haven't gotten it by now you won't.

[Klaatu]

I'm not denying this point. How many times do I have to say it? I'm not going to restate why Hayenmill was objecting, if you haven't gotten it by now you won't.

I think both of you suffer from "trying-to-read-between-the-lines" disease. For example, you thought I was making a joke.
He tries to hunt for "hidden meanings" and such. Well what you see is what you get. Can you understand that???