One More Right-"Libertarian" "Economic Miracle" Bites the Dust

[Kiev Communard]

Singapore's economy stalls as manufacturing slumps

Singapore's economic growth stalled in the second quarter as manufacturing activity in the country plunged.

Growth was 0.5% in the three months to the end of June compared with a year earlier, a sharp decline from 9.3% growth in the previous quarter.

Singapore authorities said the sharp turnaround was led by a drop in demand for semiconductor computer chips.

Manufacturing was down 5.5% in the second quarter compared with a year ago.

Singapore has been struggling to maintain last year's record pace of growth.

Compared to the previous three months, GDP contracted at a rate equivalent to an annual 7.8%.

The weaker-than-expected numbers have led to concerns that the city-state may not be able to meet its growth targets for the year.

"The growth forecast of 5-7% that the government has is looking a bit too positive," said Chua Bin of Bank of America-Merrill Lynch.

The services sector recorded modest growth of 3.3% year-on-year, down from 7.6% in the January-March period, reflecting a slowdown in the distribution and financial sectors, the Trade and Industry Ministry said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14148995





So it turns out once again that low wages, the practical absence of public welfare system and extremely "flexible" labour market do not prevent the sharp fall in growth indicators. Perhaps, after all the failures of Pinochet's Chile, Suharto's Indonesia, the collapse of Hong Kong speculative financialist model after 1997 (with -3.1% growth last year), and now that of Singapore, the right-"libertarians" will (just maybe) acknowledge that there is something else to blame for economic crises than "scroungers and welfare queens"?

[Kenco Smooth]

I wouldn't hold your breath.

[RGacky3]

Thats not biting the dust, not yet, Singapore is one of those dictatorial capitalist states, but it, like Pinoches experiment, is gonna collapse. ALL of those miricals, go the same, a couple years of rediculous growth, a short dramatic slowdown, and then a collapse, like China its very much an export economy (meaning luckily it can work well without large worker demand), and like China the state has large stakes in the economy.

[ZombieRothbard]

This is the equivalent of me posting articles about the fall of the Soviet Union and proclaiming communism dead forever.

[RGacky3]

I'm sick of this shit,

Did the USSR have ANY worker control over industry? NO
Did the USSR have ANY public democratic control over the economy? NO
Did the USSR have even independant labor unions, or free workers organizations? NO

Not even close to being socialist, Norway and Germany were more socialist.

Does Singapore have private property? Yes and a lot of it
Does Singapore have a for profit economy? Yes most of it
Does Singapore have a market economy? Yes most of it.

Enough of this false equivilency.

[Jose Gracchus]

This is the equivalent of me posting articles about the fall of the Soviet Union and proclaiming communism dead forever.

Yes, I'm sure you'll keep singing panegyrics to that thing never even pushed for by any social movement, but truly only extant in some academics' heads, financed by the Koch brothers in George Mason University.

The best part is the Koch brothers' original fortune was made by their daddy taking blood money to build oil refineries for Stalin after he was locked out of the U.S. by lawsuits from oil majors. If that isn't a joke on "free-market" capitalism, I don't know what is.

[Kiev Communard]

This is the equivalent of me posting articles about the fall of the Soviet Union and proclaiming communism dead forever.

Except that:

a) Communist-anarchists do not view the Soviet Union as "communist" and are therefore not liable to answer for its policies, much less for its failures;

b) Right-"libertarians" specifically claim Singapore (together with Hong Kong) to be their "model societies" and thus could be questioned on their failures.

[Rafiq]

This is the equivalent of me posting articles about the fall of the Soviet Union and proclaiming communism dead forever.

The article is referring to right wing libertarians in the U.S. who praise people like pinochet.

I understand you, you have no tolerance for those "Fake, Authoritarian" libertarians who have ruined your name...

And have nothing to do with them.

Than again, at least the soviet union had major economic growth in the 1930's 40's and 50's... ;)

[Rafiq]

I'm sick of this shit,

Did the USSR have ANY worker control over industry? NO
Did the USSR have ANY public democratic control over the economy? NO
Did the USSR have even independant labor unions, or free workers organizations? NO

Not even close to being socialist, Norway and Germany were more socialist.

Does Singapore have private property? Yes and a lot of it
Does Singapore have a for profit economy? Yes most of it
Does Singapore have a market economy? Yes most of it.

Enough of this false equivilency.

no becuz itttzz da authority!!!!!111111

[ZombieRothbard]

Does Singapore have private property? Yes and a lot of it

There is no truly private property when there exists a state.


Does Singapore have a for profit economy? Yes most of it

Even if all of it did, what does that prove? They are tanking because it is possible to make a profit in their economy?


Does Singapore have a market economy? Yes most of it.

Wow, capitalism is dead, Singapore has a market economy and they aren't doing that well.


Enough of this false equivilency.

I don't think there is any false equivalency. You literally just implied that anywhere that has a market economy and allows people to profit is capitalist or libertarian.

[ZombieRothbard]

Except that:

a) Communist-anarchists do not view the Soviet Union as "communist" and are therefore not liable to answer for its policies, much less for its failures;

Check


b) Right-"libertarians" specifically claim Singapore (together with Hong Kong) to be their "model societies" and thus could be questioned on their failures.

Well then you might find it easy to believe that in the same way communist anarchists don't believe that the Soviet Union was communist, capitalist anarchists don't believe Singapore was capitalist, hence the "equivalency bullshit" I unleashed earlier in the thread.

I don't mean to be rude, but I have stayed away from making silly judgements on you guys via the Soviet Union talking point. Then every other thread in Opposing Ideologies that involves "Right Libertarianism" seems to invoke historical or empirical observations based on strawmanning the "right-libertarian" position. In essence, I am hearing the same kind of rhetoric from you folks that you complain about hearing from everybody else

ex. "Singapore is capitalist", "Monopolies form in the market based on X historical example" and "Capitalists would hire private armies and kill everybody".

I fail to see the difference between that, and somebody saying "The Soviet Union was communist", "Communism fails because the Soviet Union collapsed" and "Communism is antithetical to human nature".

With all due respect, the quality of the conversation since I first arrived here has drastically declined. I have gone to great length to lay out some of the Austrian School and so called "pseudo-anarchist" position, often times to only be met with talking points that don't quite make sense to me, or people trying to get me to defend Singapore or the Cato Institute or whatever other things you guys erroneously associate with my own personal brand of libertarianism.

If you guys would like to argue theory, learn about each others positions etc than I am game. If we are going to be playing assgrab over historical empiricism (I am not a historian, neither are most of you I take it) then we mine as well part ways.

[RED DAVE]

Well then you might find it easy to believe that in the same way communist anarchists don't believe that the Soviet Union was communist, capitalist anarchists don't believe Singapore was capitalist, hence the "equivalency bullshit" I unleashed earlier in the thread.Bullshit is right. (1) Singapore is as capitalist as can be; however, (2) the USSR had nothing to do with socialism, communist, etc. Anyone with any knowledge of economics can demonstrate (1) and (2).


I don't mean to be rudeActually you do.


but I have stayed away from making silly judgements on you guys via the Soviet Union talking point.Since the point is nonsense, i suggest you return to making all the ridiculous comments you want.


Then every other thread in Opposing Ideologies that involves "Right Libertarianism" seems to invoke historical or empirical observations based on strawmanning the "right-libertarian" position. In essence, I am hearing the same kind of rhetoric from you folks that you complain about hearing from everybody else.Well, the difference is that we can refute the crap about the USSR being socialist or communist, but you can't refute the truth that Singapore is capitalist.


ex. "Singapore is capitalist", "Monopolies form in the market based on X historical example" and "Capitalists would hire private armies and kill everybody".Singapore is capitalist because it uses the capitalist mode of production.


I fail to seeYou fail to see. Not surprising.


the difference between that, and somebody saying "The Soviet Union was communist", "Communism fails because the Soviet Union collapsed" and "Communism is antithetical to human nature".Well, then, I suggest that you brush up on your logic.


With all due respectThat's a laugh.


the quality of the conversation since I first arrived here has drastically declined. I have gone to great length to lay out some of the Austrian School and so called "pseudo-anarchist" position, often times to only be met with talking points that don't quite make sense to meI'm sure they didn't make sense.


or people trying to get me to defend Singapore or the Cato Institute or whatever other things you guys erroneously associate with my own personal brand of libertarianism.Defend away, but don't expect to get treated nicely around here.


If you guys would like to argue theory, learn about each others positions etc than I am game.Frankly, I doubt it.


If we are going to be playing assgrab over historical empiricism (I am not a historian, neither are most of you I take it) then we mine as well part ways.If you decide to go don't let the door hit you on the ass one the way out.

RED DAVE

[ZombieRothbard]

Bullshit is right. (1) Singapore is as capitalist as can be; however, (2) the USSR had nothing to do with socialism, communist, etc. Anyone with any knowledge of economics can demonstrate (1) and (2).

Actually you do.

Since the point is nonsense, i suggest you return to making all the ridiculous comments you want.

Well, the difference is that we can refute the crap about the USSR being socialist or communist, but you can't refute the truth that Singapore is capitalist.

Singapore is capitalist because it uses the capitalist mode of production.

You fail to see. Not surprising.

Well, then, I suggest that you brush up on your logic.

That's a laugh.

I'm sure they didn't make sense.

Defend away, but don't expect to get treated nicely around here.

Frankly, I doubt it.

If you decide to go don't let the door hit you on the ass one the way out.

RED DAVE

Well on that note, I am leaving then. Thanks to the people who treated me fairly and actually wanted to argue theory. Next time you guys are hypocritically berating somebody who cites the Soviet Union as an example of communism failing, please remember that a good amount of you (not all by any means, but some) do the exact same thing to so called capitalists that visit this forum.

I may be back in the future to check back in. Good luck to Distruzio. Best of luck to you guys, later.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Well on that note, I am leaving then. Thanks to the people who treated me fairly and actually wanted to argue theory. Next time you guys are hypocritically berating somebody who cites the Soviet Union as an example of communism failing, please remember that a good amount of you (not all by any means, but some) do the exact same thing to so called capitalists that visit this forum.

I may be back in the future to check back in. Good luck to Distruzio. Best of luck to you guys, later.
This is an internet forum. If you're going to act dramatic and leave, then go for it, but you're looking like a fool doing it.

[Geiseric]

There is no truly private property when there exists a state. Even if all of it did, what does that prove? They are tanking because it is possible to make a profit in their economy? Wow, capitalism is dead, Singapore has a market economy and they aren't doing that well. I don't think there is any false equivalency. You literally just implied that anywhere that has a market economy and allows people to profit is capitalist or libertarian. dude the factor of profit is the essence of capitalism.

[RichardAWilson]

The State predated Capitalism. Anarchic-Capitalism is utopian garbage. Capitalism can’t flourish in the absence of a State. - (I.e. Look at Somalia!) Capitalists demand an administrative and judicial apparatus to enforce property relations (patents, copyrights, contracts, etc.)

As laissez-faire capitalism became unfeasible - the rich allowed the "State" to take even larger roles in the economy:

(such as providing public infrastructure - the Interstate Highway System),

Securing natural resources and enforcing the spread of capitalism to primitive countries (Imperialism, Colonialism and the Military Industrial Complex) -

British capitalists profited by getting the Chinese hooked to opium and draining their Gold Reserves.

During the Depression and the Cold War, the Capitalists were even willing to contribute more to the State as a means of preventing class war and the spread of socialism by providing concessions:

(I.e. Jobless Benefits, Welfare and Labor Relation Boards).

The fact that America moved from nothing to the New Deal (which was, by and large, supported by rich white men) in such a short period of time illustrates how the capitalists themselves no longer had faith in laissez-faire.

In some countries, where the spread of class war and socialism were more feared - such as in Germany, the rich turned to the Nazi-Party.

In Spain - another country that came close to turning to socialism, the rich supported Franco's dictatorship.

In both cases, the rich were forced to support the lesser of two evils (according to them). It was Socialism vs. Fascism.

In America (and) Britain, things hadn't gotten that bad (politically) and the capitalists could use liberal-democracy to promote stability and their own continued accumulation of wealth by offering table scraps to the trade unions and the working classes.

There is, after all, a reason why Social-Democratic, Labor and Liberal Parties have governed the industrial world since the Depression. - And it's often the rich that support them - Warren Buffet, Gates, Soros and others.

There's a two-fold advantage to controlling and directing liberalism and reformism - and the left-winged labor-based parties -

one is to provide table scraps when needed - appeasing the working classes -

and the other is to misdirect the revolutionary cause and the unions - controlling working class thought and ideology and supressing the radical elements within such movements and organizations.

[RGacky3]

There is no truly private property when there exists a state.


Your gonna have to back that up with something because that is total bullshit.


Even if all of it did, what does that prove? They are tanking because it is possible to make a profit in their economy?


It is true and it proves its a capitalist economy.


Wow, capitalism is dead, Singapore has a market economy and they aren't doing that well.


Niether are any of the more "market" economies.


I don't think there is any false equivalency. You literally just implied that anywhere that has a market economy and allows people to profit is capitalist or libertarian.

A: Libertarian is not an economic system.

B: Anyplace that has a mainly market based economy with mostly private enterprise and a for profit economy IS capitalist, the false equivilancy is what I put in the post, the USSR is not socialist, Singapore is Capitalist.

[Kadir Ateş]

I'm actually curious to hear what ZombieRothard's definition of private property in so far as s/he claims that the presence of the state negates its existence...

[danyboy27]

Well on that note, I am leaving then. Thanks to the people who treated me fairly and actually wanted to argue theory. Next time you guys are hypocritically berating somebody who cites the Soviet Union as an example of communism failing, please remember that a good amount of you (not all by any means, but some) do the exact same thing to so called capitalists that visit this forum.

I may be back in the future to check back in. Good luck to Distruzio. Best of luck to you guys, later.


you are not the first cappie leaving this forum, other before you ran out of argument and left. social democrats tend to stay longer tho, beccause unlike you folks they do understand capitalism.

[Kiev Communard]

Well on that note, I am leaving then. Thanks to the people who treated me fairly and actually wanted to argue theory. Next time you guys are hypocritically berating somebody who cites the Soviet Union as an example of communism failing, please remember that a good amount of you (not all by any means, but some) do the exact same thing to so called capitalists that visit this forum.

I may be back in the future to check back in. Good luck to Distruzio. Best of luck to you guys, later.

ZombieRothbard, your problem with recognizing the capitalist character of Singapore and other modern states stems from the fact that you use increasingly abstract definitions of private property and "the market". As I have already mentioned, the term of "private property" as used by socialists generally refers to the right of a distinct part of society to exclusively control the means of social production, which is used to (directly or indirectly) force the other part of society to labour for the benefit of the controllers of these means of production, as the labourers cannot meet their living requirements otherwise.

Therefore, it is completely irrelevant whether this private property takes the juridical form of the state property, corporate property or individual property; as long as it does not imply the unity between immediate producers and their means of production, it is considered "private" (hence exploitative) in economic sense. That is why the property of small shop-owner who does not employ wage labour and works together with his family members is actually not "private" by my definition, it is the labour property (which is still inferior to the common property but superior to all forms of private property, including the state one).

The same line of reasoning might be applied with regard to capitalist market. You seem to be treating the market as a veritable combination of all voluntary interactions between human beings, while when talking about "the market" I (and other socialists) imply the chaotic movement of commodities that abstract themselves from their owners and turn from the residual of social production into its general goal, thus diminishing and limiting the very breadth of human interaction they supposedly represent. I suggest you read Marx's chapter on Commodity Fetishism in Das Kapital, Volume 1, if you wish to understand my point there.

All in all, there is no need to feel resentful about the whole forum, if some of its members are acting rude towards you. I hope you will re-think your decision and answer my criticism of your views on private property and the market as expounded here.

[Ocean Seal]

This is the equivalent of me posting articles about the fall of the Soviet Union and proclaiming communism dead forever.
Except that the Soviet Union didn't collapse because of its economy. As Ismail's signature is nice enough to point out, a certain bureaucrat wanted to liquidate communism. The natural growth of capitalism ran out in Singapore as it did in the United States and the majority of the world.

[agnixie]

Zombie Rothbard - private property and the state are derived from each other

[RichardAWilson]

The Soviet-Union didn't have Communism. We need to call apples, apples and oranges, oranges. The U.S.S.R. wasn't even an exemplification of Socialism.

However, you're right that the Soviet-Union wasn't dissolved because of macroeconomic stagnation. Living standards were, after all, still much higher than in the industrializing world.

Health care and education were still provided as universal services and housing was affordable to every Russian that was willing to work for a living.

The reason the "Union" was liquidated was because of opportunists within the CCCP. It's not without reason that some of the leading exploiters in Russia are former CCCP Leaders and Members.

[ZombieRothbard]

Does Singapore have a gold standard? No? Ok, then it failed the very first test of what capitalism should look like. I don't feel the need to defend Singapore, since I don't care about Singapore, nor do I know much about it, nor is it relevant at all to right-libertarianism beyond what you guys believe "right libertarians" preach. If you want to debate morons that want to defend Singapore, then I am not the guy to do it. And this topic mine as well be named "One More Communist "Miracle" Bites The Dust" and have an article about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[RGacky3]

Since when does what backs the currency have anything to do with whether or not its Capitalism?

As for your "it might as well be called "another communist miracle bites the dust" well as we've demonstrated post after post, all of which you've just ignored, no it might as well not, because by the common definition of socialism the USSR does'nt fit and by the common definition of Capitalism Singapore does fit.

[Kiev Communard]

Does Singapore have a gold standard? No? Ok, then it failed the very first test of what capitalism should look like.

How is that so? There was a paper money even as late as the early 19th century, and the capitalist speculators in, say, France during the French Revolution made profits under the assignat system. The abolition of the gold standard was caused by the necessity to prop up the capitalist production by artificially extending the limits of the credit system, not by some desire of introducing "socialism".


I don't feel the need to defend Singapore, since I don't care about Singapore, nor do I know much about it, nor is it relevant at all to right-libertarianism beyond what you guys believe "right libertarians" preach. If you want to debate morons that want to defend Singapore, then I am not the guy to do it. And this topic mine as well be named "One More Communist "Miracle" Bites The Dust" and have an article about the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Then why did you decide to participate in this discussion at all? The reason I posted it there was because I have recently been debating a certain Russian anarcho-capitalist who specifically claims that Singapore is a "model for economic development". I lack precise information on American anarcho-capitalists' general attitude to Singapore, but I suspect that minarchists generally uphold it as well.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Since when does what backs the currency have anything to do with whether or not its Capitalism?Can you even have currency backed by gold without a state to ensure that the gold really exists and the currency is not counterfeit?

Maybe in "true" capitalism you have to actually use precious medals which are then certified as to their purity and content and then check gold prices each morning before you buy coffee. Of course how would investors feel safe about the people certifying the medals - wouldn't they want to set up some kind of central body to check and ensure... oh shit, that sounds like a state.

[Jose Gracchus]

Remember kids: What capitalism is and is not is not determined by what actually empirically existing capitalists do and why, but according to what some David Duke-loving failed intellectual who couldn't sell a book to save his life made up in his head. Obviously the best thing to go on.

[Skooma Addict]

As for your "it might as well be called "another communist miracle bites the dust" well as we've demonstrated post after post, all of which you've just ignored, no it might as well not, because by the common definition of socialism the USSR does'nt fit and by the common definition of Capitalism Singapore does fit.

It could just be called "another attempt at implementing communism bites the dust." What communists/socialists/anarchists want society to look like and what society would actually look like if they attempt to implement their ideas are two totally different things.

[Jimmie Higgins]

It could just be called "another attempt at implementing communism bites the dust." What communists/socialists/anarchists want society to look like and what society would actually look like if they attempt to implement their ideas are two totally different things.Except for the Paris Commune and the early months of the Russian Revolution and other examples of workers taking power into their own hands which were such "failures" that the ruling classes of various other countries felt compelled to team up and smash them militarily - 14 countries in the case of Russia and former enemies (France and Prussia) in the case of the Paris Commune.

[ComradeMan]

Since when does what backs the currency have anything to do with whether or not its Capitalism?


Can we all put some money in a hat to buy Gacky a book like "Teach Yourself Capitalism"?

Mega face palm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jimmie Higgins]

Can we all put some money in a hat to buy Gacky a book like "Teach Yourself Capitalism"?

Mega face palm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!But how could we buy such a book when our money is not backed by gold? :laugh:

[ComradeMan]

But how could we buy such a book when our money is not backed by gold?

We could pull fillings and melt down old rings?

;)


:lol:

[Kiev Communard]

It could just be called "another attempt at implementing communism bites the dust." What communists/socialists/anarchists want society to look like and what society would actually look like if they attempt to implement their ideas are two totally different things.

Perhaps. But the same can be said of virtually each and every economic model/political ideology.

[ComradeMan]

It could just be called "another attempt at implementing communism bites the dust." What communists/socialists/anarchists want society to look like and what society would actually look like if they attempt to implement their ideas are two totally different things.

Ma sta zitto che non capisci un cazzo.
;)

[cb9's_unity]

It is fucking amazing how many right-libertarians actually don't know what capitalism is. I once found myself in a room full of objectivists that didn't really understand the difference between capitalism and laissez-faire. They believe capitalism is nothing but an ideology. So it's beyond them not knowing what capitalism is, but actually even what kind of thing capitalism is.

The vast majority of right-libertarians still uphold the state in some form. This article was aimed at them, not anarcho-capitalists. And regardless of that, Singapore fits into the traditional definition of capitalism. Most people on this site would agree that the USSR didn't fit into the standards of what socialism is at least when it fell.

[Skooma Addict]

Ma sta zitto che non capisci un cazzo.
;)

Tipico argomento italiano. Berlusconi non è stato eletto da stupirsi.:)

[ComradeMan]

Tipico argomento italiano. Berlusconi non è stato eletto da stupirsi.

Learn to write Italian properly- your sentence is crap.

Yet again, you have to mention "nationality" in your attacks.... closet racist.

Casse-toi alors, pauv'con, va!

[Skooma Addict]

Learn to write Italian properly- your sentence is crap.

Yet again, you have to mention "nationality" in your attacks.... closet racist.

Casse-toi alors, pauv'con, va!



Too easy.

[RGacky3]

Can we all put some money in a hat to buy Gacky a book like "Teach Yourself Capitalism"?

Mega face palm!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So your telling me that Fiat currency = NOT capitalism but a commodity or gold backed currency = Capitalism?

In what planet is that the definition? Common now

... Or were you being sarcastic :blushing:


Can you even have currency backed by gold without a state to ensure that the gold really exists and the currency is not counterfeit?

Maybe in "true" capitalism you have to actually use precious medals which are then certified as to their purity and content and then check gold prices each morning before you buy coffee. Of course how would investors feel safe about the people certifying the medals - wouldn't they want to set up some kind of central body to check and ensure... oh shit, that sounds like a state.

True, plus many many other problems that we've been over before.

[ZombieRothbard]

Most people on this site would agree that the USSR didn't fit into the standards of what socialism is at least when it fell.

"Most people". Pretty much sums up my point. The Singapore defending libertarians are like your guys Stalinists. Kinda funny how you guys can't seem to comprehend the fact that capitalists aren't just some big bloc of people who all agree on everything.

[RGacky3]

"Most people". Pretty much sums up my point. The Singapore defending libertarians are like your guys Stalinists. Kinda funny how you guys can't seem to comprehend the fact that capitalists aren't just some big bloc of people who all agree on everything.

No its not, because Singapore was at least going in that direction (MORE private property, MORE open markets, MORE profit motive) compared to other capitalist countries.

THe USSR was not MORE workers control or MORE economic democracy (at least compared to other industrialized social-democracies) at all.

[Skooma Addict]

No its not, because Singapore was at least going in that direction (MORE private property, MORE open markets, MORE profit motive) compared to other capitalist countries.

THe USSR was not MORE workers control or MORE economic democracy (at least compared to other industrialized social-democracies) at all.

It wasn't more "libertarian" than other capitalist countries though.

[RGacky3]

What does that mean?

[Skooma Addict]

What does that mean?

There is a civil and social aspect to libertarianism. Singapore is a quasi police state.

[Judicator]

So it turns out once again that low wages, the practical absence of public welfare system and extremely "flexible" labour market do not prevent the sharp fall in growth indicators. Perhaps, after all the failures of Pinochet's Chile, Suharto's Indonesia, the collapse of Hong Kong speculative financialist model after 1997 (with -3.1% growth last year), and now that of Singapore, the right-"libertarians" will (just maybe) acknowledge that there is something else to blame for economic crises than "scroungers and welfare queens"?

Compared to leftist paradise like France, which has enjoyed US recession level unemployment rates since 1985?

Do you believe it's a common right libertarians position that recessions will never occur?

[Revolution starts with U]

France a "leftist paradise?" :D
The only thing funnier than your statement is the mod's piss poor job in identifying you as a cappy. (FYI I knew it in your first post)
But Im no fan of the restriction system, so everyday you live on unrestricted, I count as a victory for anarchism in general :thumbup1:

[MarxSchmarx]

The love right-"libertarians" have for Singapore's government is just bullshit based on a patronizingly willful ignorance.

Something like 85% - EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT - of Singaporeans live in government housing, take advantage of a universal healthcare program where price controls are in effect, and benefit from one of the most rigorous free and robust educational systems in the world, not to mention take mass transit everywhere. The Singaporean state intervenes heavily to ensure their exports are competitive abroad.

Seriously, right libertarians are rarely worth taking seriously, so when I say those who extol the virtues of Singaporean capitalism as a laissez-faire paradise ruled by a nightwatchmen are batshit insane, they've already surpassed a pretty high bar.

[RGacky3]

There is a civil and social aspect to libertarianism. Singapore is a quasi police state.

We're talking economics (also btw libertarian outside the US means anti-capitalist as well).


Compared to leftist paradise like France, which has enjoyed US recession level unemployment rates since 1985?

Do you believe it's a common right libertarians position that recessions will never occur?

This is not a recession, not in the US at least, its a collapse.

As far as france ... common, lets be serious, btw, FWI, it was the early 1980s that France gave up socialization and took up privitization

[ZombieRothbard]

The love right-"libertarians" have for Singapore's government is just bullshit based on a patronizingly willful ignorance.

Something like 85% - EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT - of Singaporeans live in government housing, take advantage of a universal healthcare program where price controls are in effect, and benefit from one of the most rigorous free and robust educational systems in the world, not to mention take mass transit everywhere. The Singaporean state intervenes heavily to ensure their exports are competitive abroad.

Seriously, right libertarians are rarely worth taking seriously, so when I say those who extol the virtues of Singaporean capitalism as a laissez-faire paradise ruled by a nightwatchmen are batshit insane, they've already surpassed a pretty high bar.

Well I guess that kills the idea that Singapore even has close to a libertarian economy.

[ZombieRothbard]

This is not a recession, not in the US at least, its a collapse.

As far as france ... common, lets be serious, btw, FWI, it was the early 1980s that France gave up socialization and took up privitization

Isn't it possible that the recessions are caused by central banking and the elimination of the gold standard, and not the fact that it is possible to make a profit in the economy?

[Revolution starts with U]

No, central banking and fiat money don't cause recessions. And AE doesn't even say it does, no matter how much AE noobs think it does. What AE says is that expansion of the money supply causes a misallocation of capital, which causes recessions (central banks and fiat money may exacerbate it, but not cause it). And private banks were perfectly fine doing this on their own, long before central banks came around with their dreaded fiat currency.

[Die Rote Fahne]

Isn't it possible that the recessions are caused by central banking and the elimination of the gold standard, and not the fact that it is possible to make a profit in the economy?

So, the great depression was a result of not having the gold standard?

Recessions and worse happened before we dropped the GS. So, please, get a new argument.

[RGacky3]

Isn't it possible that the recessions are caused by central banking and the elimination of the gold standard, and not the fact that it is possible to make a profit in the economy?

Well, they had the Gold Standard during the great depression, the similarity between the 2 depressions were liberalizing the markets, and the inevitable inequality of wealth and destruction of unions, and so on.

So basically no, empirical evidence, and logical explinations show why these collapses happen.

[agnixie]

Isn't it possible that the recessions are caused by central banking and the elimination of the gold standard, and not the fact that it is possible to make a profit in the economy?

There is nothing magical about the gold standard, it had significant crisis throughout its history and was only a stable form of currency with regulation, like all other currencies.

[Rafiq]

"Most people". Pretty much sums up my point. The Singapore defending libertarians are like your guys Stalinists. Kinda funny how you guys can't seem to comprehend the fact that capitalists aren't just some big bloc of people who all agree on everything.

But none the less Free-Marketters don't have the sectarianism that we do ;)

[Rafiq]

There is a civil and social aspect to libertarianism. Singapore is a quasi police state.

But why do you think it was necessary for Singapore to be a quasi police state?

... Dare I say it was because the Bourgeoisie needed an upper hand in the class war?

No one is an asshole for no reason.

Singapore needed a strong authoritarian iron fist to assure the class war be stopped.

unfortunately they will fail.

It's not like the Eastern Block where the dictator was making loads of money, the dictators of Singapore was making sure the Bourgeoisie could secure their capital.


So let me ask, why was it necessary for Singapore to be so authoritarian if Free Markets are freedom?

[Rafiq]

Well I guess that kills the idea that Singapore even has close to a libertarian economy.

It used to, and once everything got fucked up, the State had to intervene.

Just like how in the Soviet Union, it used to be a worker's democracy, but when the revolution could not spread the State had to slowly start implementing Markets and destruction of the Soviets, etc .

[Rafiq]

Isn't it possible that the recessions are caused by central banking and the elimination of the gold standard, and not the fact that it is possible to make a profit in the economy?

Though why were living standards much better before people like Ronald Reagan, and for people in the third world?

How come once the Neo Liberal doctrine came into place, everything got fucked up?

Or are you going to say that Neo liberalism was more State Authoritarianism :lol:

[ZombieRothbard]

But none the less Free-Marketters don't have the sectarianism that we do ;)

Objectivists, Austrians, Constitutionalists, Small Government Conservatives and all of the sects within each. The difference is that our sects aren't rooted in historical grievances.

[ZombieRothbard]

Well, they had the Gold Standard during the great depression, the similarity between the 2 depressions were liberalizing the markets, and the inevitable inequality of wealth and destruction of unions, and so on.

So basically no, empirical evidence, and logical explinations show why these collapses happen.

Actually, that was a fake gold standard which set a parity between dollars and gold.

[ZombieRothbard]

No, central banking and fiat money don't cause recessions. And AE doesn't even say it does, no matter how much AE noobs think it does. What AE says is that expansion of the money supply causes a misallocation of capital, which causes recessions (central banks and fiat money may exacerbate it, but not cause it). And private banks were perfectly fine doing this on their own, long before central banks came around with their dreaded fiat currency.

I have heard Rothbard speak to the contrary in a lecture of his I listened to quite a while ago. I forgot the specifics of what he said, and it is an area of study I have not yet researched thoroughly enough. But private banks would, according to Rothbard, have several more checks to credit expansion than a single monopolistic bank would. And a gold standard would prevent printing of dollars which would allow for over expansion of credit.

[agnixie]

Actually, that was a fake gold standard which set a parity between dollars and gold.

No true scotsman - that's exactly what a gold standard is. Even a direct use of metal as currency is still arbitrarily giving value to a mostly useless metal. Again, the 14th century venetian gold crisis led to a complete crash of the value of gold, and gold only really stabilized in the 19th century because of this "fake" standard.

[Tim Cornelis]

I haven't read the entire thread but I have to agree with Zombie Rothbard to a certain degree. I do not agree that Singapore is not capitalists since a state exists, however Zombie Rothbard--I presume--is an adherent of the Austrian school of economics, the Austrian perception of the free market differs from that of the neoclassical school. Neoclassical economics and Austrian economics both blame gov't intervention but differ on monetary policy. Austrians blame economics crises on government control of currency. Singapore has government control of currency and thus one cannot proclaim ALL forms of free market capitalism to be a failure by pointing to Singapore as it does not disprove the Austrian school.

Also, Singapore has extensive public housing and universal health care--which IMO goes to show absolute free market capitalism cannot work without social security (repressive tolerance) to a certain degree.

[Revolution starts with U]

I have heard Rothbard speak to the contrary in a lecture of his I listened to quite a while ago. I forgot the specifics of what he said, and it is an area of study I have not yet researched thoroughly enough. But private banks would, according to Rothbard, have several more checks to credit expansion than a single monopolistic bank would. And a gold standard would prevent printing of dollars which would allow for over expansion of credit.

Can you link that? As far as I am aware (Rothbard's Panic of 1819) he wrote a whole book on how free market currency could and had still crashed. I would think he would continue to maintain that CBs and FCs exacerbate the problem (I don't wholly disagree with him there), but not be the root cause.

[RGacky3]

Actually, that was a fake gold standard which set a parity between dollars and gold.

So your saying, if they had a DIFFERENT TYPE of gold standard there would'nt have been a crash? The fact is the outcome is the same, a limit on monitary growth.

THe Great Depression was a fundemental failing of capitalism as is this one.


And a gold standard would prevent printing of dollars which would allow for over expansion of credit.

Which would lead to deflation and a contraction of the economy.

[Kiev Communard]

But private banks would, according to Rothbard, have several more checks to credit expansion than a single monopolistic bank would. And a gold standard would prevent printing of dollars which would allow for over expansion of credit.

And that is why the capitalists (i.e. the real ones, not compassionate inventor-entrepreneurs that exist in right-"libertarian" dreams) were glad to get rid of the golden standard, which constrained credit expansion they needed for the expansion of profits, and participate in one monopolistic national bank system (i.e. the Federal Reserve) instead of having to deal with vagaries and instabilities inherent in the existence of several competing money-issuing agencies. Despite what Rothbardians choose to believe, real-world capitalists are always eager to escape the market discipline themselves, while insisting that their wage labourers and the unemployed should take the full brunt of it.