Question to libertarians

[molotovcocktail]

Just wonder, how will reducing the government stop this current problems:

Economic Recession
Hunger in east Africa
Unemployment

Marxism have solutions to all this problems. Libertarians have a solution, but i cannot see how it is supposed to work.

[Ocean Seal]

It won't its an argument designed to keep the working class away from class politics ideologically. Libertarians (capitalists) have absolutely no scientific basis for why their plans will work. They have some Reagan quotes, some emotional speeches about the founding fathers, and scapegoats like welfare queens and immigrants. They want people to believe that the problem isn't capital, but rather state interference with capitalism much like fascists wanted people to believe that the problem wasn't capital but rather an international Jewish conspiracy. What they don't understand is that the state was the basis of development for capitalism, and there is no reason to believe that the ruling class will shrink it or that shrinking it will stop state-like institutions from springing up (private police, private armies, and so on).

[MURDOC]

I would describe myself as somewhere in the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist spectrum, so I will be glad to answer questions about these sorts of things and any other questions you or anyone else have.


Just wonder, how will reducing the government stop this current problems:

Economic Recession

In order to understand how to "fix" economic recessions, it is important you first understand what causes these recessions to begin with. Recessions, like the one we find ourselves in now, are caused by loose monetary policy initiated by central banks. The solution to a recession is to abolish central banking and return to competing, free market currencies. Interest rates should be set, like all prices, by the forces of supply and demand. When the government artificially sets the rate lower than it would be in a free market, the demand for lending exceeds the supply of lenders. The difference is made up for by inflation and leads to booms/busts.

For more: en.wikimedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory


Hunger in east Africa

Open borders, free immigration and free trade all would drastically improve the lives of the poor in Africa and elsewhere in the world, and would require literally no political action on their own end (assuming they allow people to freely emigrate from theirr respective countries, which isn't actually the case a lot of the time in many socialist countries throughout the world both historically and today.)

If we want these countries to build sustainable, strong, healthy economies of their own, they should be encouraged to adopt market reforms and to allow/encourage trade and foreign investment.

Poverty in the third world, no different than poverty elsewhere, is the result of low productivity. Wages are simply a reflection of worker productivity:

federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/krozner20060927chart1.gif

If we want these people to have access to opportunities which will allow them to raise themselves out of poverty, the key is to allow for investment and capital accumulation which will give them greater access to productive, wealth producing endeavors.


Unemployment

Businesses employ people when they believe the benefit of hiring an additional employee exceeds the cost. If we want to encourage employment, we should remove restrictions/regulations which artificially raise the cost of employment. The minimum wage, legal requirements for paying time and a half for OT, requiring employers to pay health care expenses, etc. Looking at the other side of the equation, we can also increase the benefit of hiring employees by stealing less of their money via taxation.

Frictional unemployment also comes about during recessions, as capital is artificially funneled to sectors of the economy where it would not be under normal market conditions. The result is that people build too many houses, acquire skills/experience in house building and related industries, etc. The "solution" to this problem is the same as the first question you asked.

[MURDOC]

Libertarians (capitalists) have absolutely no scientific basis for why their plans will work.

The explosion in human living standards universally seen in countries that embrace markets over the last 100 years is the "scientific basis" for my beliefs.


They want people to believe that the problem isn't capital, but rather state interference with capitalism much like fascists wanted people to believe that the problem wasn't capital but rather an international Jewish conspiracy.

This sounds more similar to the justifications I've heard made in regard to why socialism has led to miserable living conditions, absolute destitution and inescapable grinding poverty in literally every single instance it has ever been put into practice.

[Revolution starts with U]

I would describe myself as somewhere in the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist spectrum, so I will be glad to answer questions about these sorts of things and any other questions you or anyone else have.



In order to understand how to "fix" economic recessions, it is important you first understand what causes these recessions to begin with. Recessions, like the one we find ourselves in now, are caused by loose monetary policy initiated by central banks. The solution to a recession is to abolish central banking and return to competing, free market currencies. Interest rates should be set, like all prices, by the forces of supply and demand. When the government artificially sets the rate lower than it would be in a free market, the demand for lending exceeds the supply of lenders. The difference is made up for by inflation and leads to booms/busts.

For more: en.wikimedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory


How does this explain the numerous and disasterous booms and busts experience prior to the adoption of central banking?
Isn't it more likely that the problem is popular demand for cheap credit and high wages?




Open borders, free immigration and free trade all would drastically improve the lives of the poor in Africa and elsewhere in the world, and would require literally no political action on their own end (assuming they allow people to freely emigrate from theirr respective countries, which isn't actually the case a lot of the time in many socialist countries throughout the world both historically and today.)

If we want these countries to build sustainable, strong, healthy economies of their own, they should be encouraged to adopt market reforms and to allow/encourage trade and foreign investment.

Poverty in the third world, no different than poverty elsewhere, is the result of low productivity. Wages are simply a reflection of worker productivity:

federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/krozner20060927chart1.gif


Is this not literally the exact stance the IMF and World Bank have taken over the last 7 decades? It is not seeming to work for the IMF, so what is different about your policy that would magically reverse this process?


If we want these people to have access to opportunities which will allow them to raise themselves out of poverty, the key is to allow for investment and capital accumulation which will give them greater access to productive, wealth producing endeavors.

I would say the key is to end private property, but... to each their own, eh?



Businesses employ people when they believe the benefit of hiring an additional employee exceeds the cost. If we want to encourage employment, we should remove restrictions/regulations which artificially raise the cost of employment. The minimum wage, legal requirements for paying time and a half for OT, requiring employers to pay health care expenses, etc. Looking at the other side of the equation, we can also increase the benefit of hiring employees by stealing less of their money via taxation.
1) Being employed at a job that doesn't pay the bills/groceries is no better than being unemployed and on welfare
2)Not pushing your externalities off on someone else is "the cost of doing business" in a free society
3) The capitalist taxes the productivity of his laborers, for his own gain, far more than the government could ever dream. One goes to work and creates $5 value. His boss keeps $4. His government only taxes $.30 of that remaining dollar
4) You do realize that prior to overtime protections you simply had to work overtime, at normal wages, or you were fired?

[tir1944]

Open borders, free immigration and free trade all would drastically improve the lives of the poor in Africa and elsewhere in the world
Omg what did i just read...:rolleyes::crying:

[Revolution starts with U]

Also Fox (get it? ;)) how are wages a reflection of worker productivity when worker productivity in the US has gone up drastically over the last 40 years while wages have remained flat, or in some cases gone down?

[molotovcocktail]

The explosion in human living standards universally seen in countries that embrace markets over the last 100 years is the "scientific basis" for my beliefs.
Where? All the countries who have experienced relative increase in living standards(Japan, South Korea, Brazil etc.) are due to overthrowing tyrannies and establishing a more efficient economic model than despotism( basically every country was despotic, and almost every economic model are more effective), or they have get rid of colonists that steal resources, increased welfare (Brazil, Scandinavia, Chile etc.), or found oil or an another valuable resource. The western countries are more centralized than they where 100 years ago, they got more centralized until the 70`s, since then have the relative living standards fallen in this countries.

[molotovcocktail]

In order to understand how to "fix" economic recessions, it is important you first understand what causes these recessions to begin with. Recessions, like the one we find ourselves in now, are caused by loose monetary policy initiated by central banks. The solution to a recession is to abolish central banking and return to competing, free market currencies. Interest rates should be set, like all prices, by the forces of supply and demand. When the government artificially sets the rate lower than it would be in a free market, the demand for lending exceeds the supply of lenders. The difference is made up for by inflation and leads to booms/busts.

For more: en.wikimedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory

I feel i am repeating myself here, i wrote this on a another thread (he never answered me), and i still wonder.


This is how bubbles occur:

Humans tend to think that "if that guy made a lot of money on tulips, why should not I get rich on tulips too?",
as a result of this, many invest in this object.This creates an increase in demand.
When the demand increases, the prices increases. The price will then rise higher than the actual value of the object, because higher amounts of an object are being bought than the amount of objects being consumed. The demand get to an unsustainable height.
At some point the prices get a fall. When the price fall, investors panic and start selling their investments. This reduces the price more, and the bubble bursts.

Can somebody tell me what this got to do with a centralized economy?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/bubbles-t162416/index.html?p=2261578#post2261578

[Nox]

I would describe myself as somewhere in the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist spectrum, so I will be glad to answer questions about these sorts of things and any other questions you or anyone else have.



In order to understand how to "fix" economic recessions, it is important you first understand what causes these recessions to begin with. Recessions, like the one we find ourselves in now, are caused by loose monetary policy initiated by central banks. The solution to a recession is to abolish central banking and return to competing, free market currencies. Interest rates should be set, like all prices, by the forces of supply and demand. When the government artificially sets the rate lower than it would be in a free market, the demand for lending exceeds the supply of lenders. The difference is made up for by inflation and leads to booms/busts.

For more: en.wikimedia.org/wiki/Austrian_business_cycle_theory



Open borders, free immigration and free trade all would drastically improve the lives of the poor in Africa and elsewhere in the world, and would require literally no political action on their own end (assuming they allow people to freely emigrate from theirr respective countries, which isn't actually the case a lot of the time in many socialist countries throughout the world both historically and today.)

If we want these countries to build sustainable, strong, healthy economies of their own, they should be encouraged to adopt market reforms and to allow/encourage trade and foreign investment.

Poverty in the third world, no different than poverty elsewhere, is the result of low productivity. Wages are simply a reflection of worker productivity:

federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/krozner20060927chart1.gif

If we want these people to have access to opportunities which will allow them to raise themselves out of poverty, the key is to allow for investment and capital accumulation which will give them greater access to productive, wealth producing endeavors.



Businesses employ people when they believe the benefit of hiring an additional employee exceeds the cost. If we want to encourage employment, we should remove restrictions/regulations which artificially raise the cost of employment. The minimum wage, legal requirements for paying time and a half for OT, requiring employers to pay health care expenses, etc. Looking at the other side of the equation, we can also increase the benefit of hiring employees by stealing less of their money via taxation.

Frictional unemployment also comes about during recessions, as capital is artificially funneled to sectors of the economy where it would not be under normal market conditions. The result is that people build too many houses, acquire skills/experience in house building and related industries, etc. The "solution" to this problem is the same as the first question you asked.

A Libertarian who actually knows what he's talking about, that was a nice surprise :)

[molotovcocktail]

A Libertarian who actually knows what he's talking about, that was a nice surprise
__________________
Nope, he don`t. What he is saying is that the reason to unemployment is too high costs for employing people. It is just one problem, if the wages went down, it will increase the profit, and more of the money will thereby end up in the hands of the richest(the owners of the companies). The richest will use less of their money than the middle income, and the circulation in money will thereby fall.
The fall in the circulation will lead to a fall in consumption. Which means that less thing will be bought, and you got yourself a depression instead of recession.

I am stealing a question from an another forum:
Name one country that have cut their way to economic growth.

[MURDOC]

How does this explain the numerous and disasterous booms and busts experience prior to the adoption of central banking?

Inflationary monetary policy predates central banking, mainly via fractional reserve banking. States chartered and organized banks in order to monopolize the industry and inflate cooperatively. The federal reserve was created with the expressed purpose of allowing these institutions to debase/inflate while trying to avoid the constraints a true market would have held them to. It should come as no surprise to anyone who understands this why the greatest economic contraction/depression to ever occur took place a short time after.


Isn't it more likely that the problem is popular demand for cheap credit and high wages?

No, that seems far less likely. This isn't even attempting to explain the existence of recessions. There is always a demand for cheaper credit and higher wages. And yet we don't have constant, never ending booms/busts.


Is this not literally the exact stance the IMF and World Bank have taken over the last 7 decades? It is not seeming to work for the IMF, so what is different about your policy that would magically reverse this process?

The IMF is a state sponsored entity which exists primarily to prop up failing states. The stance each of these states has on trade and international investment vary, but to the extent that the IMF and world bank have managed to liberalize barriers to trade, we have seen enormous strides. There is still enormous room for improvement, obviously.


I would say the key is to end private property, but... to each their own, eh?

I can't think of a better way to ensure endless grinding poverty than to forcibly forbid individuals from having any sort of stake on their own future and well being. "Ending private property", as if that was even somehow a remotely obtainable/tenable goal, would do just that.


1) Being employed at a job that doesn't pay the bills/groceries is no better than being unemployed and on welfare

Not necessarily true. Lots of people start out at low paying jobs when they are young. They use the skills and experience they learn to get into better positions that pay better. Unpaid internships come to mind, but the same also applies to stocking shelves, mopping floors, working a cashier, etc.


2)Not pushing your externalities off on someone else is "the cost of doing business" in a free society

Not sure what you mean by this.


3) The capitalist taxes the productivity of his laborers, for his own gain, far more than the government could ever dream. One goes to work and creates $5 value. His boss keeps $4. His government only taxes $.30 of that remaining dollar

Wages and capital returns both are determined via competitive forces. If I can pay you $1 to generate myself $5 worth of value, then why can't others? Why doesn't a competing factory open up across the street and offer to pay you $2? $3 in risk free profit is nothing to scoff at. Of course, if he did that someone else might come along and offer $3... and so on... The resulting distribution of wage/profit will be determined by the supply/demand of capital and the supply/demand of the particular labor in question.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I said that wages are a reflection of productivity. Competition to attract workers capable of producing value drives the market clearing price of labor up.


4) You do realize that prior to overtime protections you simply had to work overtime, at normal wages, or you were fired?

True in some jobs, probably not true in others. Most people in developed countries today are paid in salary and do not receive any overtime pay at all. This is how my job works. I do not mind because the salary is more than fair. I am thankful there is no law in place which requires my employer to only allow me to work 40 hours per week, because doing so would result in me making far less money.

[Zealot]

This sounds more similar to the justifications I've heard made in regard to why socialism has led to miserable living conditions, absolute destitution and inescapable grinding poverty in literally every single instance it has ever been put into practice.

Did Glenn Beck tell you that?

[MURDOC]

Where? All the countries who have experienced relative increase in living standards(Japan, South Korea, Brazil etc.) are due to overthrowing tyrannies and establishing a more efficient economic model than despotism( basically every country was despotic, and almost every economic model are more effective)

Correct, these countries overthrew centralized command economies and established economies which more strongly embraced market reforms.


The western countries are more centralized than they where 100 years ago,

Maybe slightly, not significantly enough so as to impede the basic functioning of markets.


since then have the relative living standards fallen in this countries.

This is a myth. Living standards have risen among every demographic and every income group in just about every country in the world over this time.

[MURDOC]

Nope, he don`t. What he is saying is that the reason to unemployment is too high costs for employing people. It is just one problem, if the wages went down, it will increase the profit, and more of the money will thereby end up in the hands of the richest(the owners of the companies).

As I pointed out earlier, wages are not the only "cost to employment". There are numerous other expenses the state imposes via regulatory requirements. Also, lowering taxes encourages employment too because it increases the benefits of hiring employees. This does not result in a decrease in wages, obviously.





The richest will use less of their money than the middle income, and the circulation in money will thereby fall.
The fall in the circulation will lead to a fall in consumption. Which means that less thing will be bought, and you got yourself a depression instead of recession.

This is the "economy as a perpetual motion machine" fallacy: mises.org/daily/3384


I am stealing a question from an another forum:
Name one country that have cut their way to economic growth.

Canada: cato-at-liberty.org/canadas-spending-cuts-and-economic-growth

[IcarusAngel]

Austrian economists should be banned from this forum. Recessions were actually longer and more severe when we had a gold standard. Furthermore, when deregulated, banks engaged in FRB to an even greater extreme in many countries. In fact an economy could not function without expanding the money supply (as was the problem during the great depression) and a single gold standard with a price set and enforced by some mythical private agency -- as Rothbard advocated -- would lead to greater consolidation of resources.

Austrian Business Cycle theory is based on the natural rate of interest which doesn't exist.

Not only are the people at the Mises Institute global warming deniers and conspiracy theorists, many are also racists and even holocaust deniers. Rothbard was a revisionist who manged the history of fractional reserve banking, supported David Duke, was a racist, and even supported torture.

[IcarusAngel]

http://johnquiggin.com/2009/05/03/austrian-business-cycle-theory/

It's also been proven that bubbles could exist in any economy.

[Revolution starts with U]

Inflationary monetary policy predates central banking, mainly via fractional reserve banking. States chartered and organized banks in order to monopolize the industry and inflate cooperatively. The federal reserve was created with the expressed purpose of allowing these institutions to debase/inflate while trying to avoid the constraints a true market would have held them to. It should come as no surprise to anyone who understands this why the greatest economic contraction/depression to ever occur took place a short time after.

Im sorry. I tought you expressly said this was the fault of central banking:


Recessions... are caused by loose monetary policy initiated by central banks.

So now it seems you are backing off that stance, and instead postulating that it is "fractional reserve banking" rather than specifically central banks that are the problem.


No, that seems far less likely.

If the problem is, then, fractional reserve banking as opposed to central banking:
1)Could there not be a central bank that uses 100% reserve banking
2)Since fractional reserve banking is a market phenomenon (meaning it developed on the market) would one not then have to assume that it is caused by some market demand? Is not the most likely demand for fractional reserve banking (>100% reserves) public demand for cheap credit and high wages?



The IMF is a state sponsored entity which exists primarily to prop up failing states. The stance each of these states has on trade and international investment vary, but to the extent that the IMF and world bank have managed to liberalize barriers to trade, we have seen enormous strides. There is still enormous room for improvement, obviously.

You didn't answer the question.
What is different about your plan than the IMF? They have had the same policy for decades and it has proved disastrous time and again.



I can't think of a better way to ensure endless grinding poverty than to forcibly forbid individuals from having any sort of stake on their own future and well being. "Ending private property", as if that was even somehow a remotely obtainable/tenable goal, would do just that.

^ Lots of words, no substance. But then again, there's no substance to just the sentence "End private property" either. So why don't we save this debate for another thread, as Im sure it will come up :D




Not necessarily true. Lots of people start out at low paying jobs when they are young. They use the skills and experience they learn to get into better positions that pay better. Unpaid internships come to mind, but the same also applies to stocking shelves, mopping floors, working a cashier, etc.

And most of them move up into jobs that still don't pay the bills.
But, more importantly, this still didn't answer the question. How is voluntarily working a sub-subsistence level job any better than being forced to do the same?



Not sure what you mean by this.

Health and safety regulations are a means to make the company itself bear the costs of what they would rather treat as externalities. Whether or not they are succesful is a different discussion for a different thread. But that is what they are, generally, intended to do.



Wages and capital returns both are determined via competitive forces. If I can pay you $1 to generate myself $5 worth of value, then why can't others? Why doesn't a competing factory open up across the street and offer to pay you $2? $3 in risk free profit is nothing to scoff at. Of course, if he did that someone else might come along and offer $3... and so on... The resulting distribution of wage/profit will be determined by the supply/demand of capital and the supply/demand of the particular labor in question.

1)Do you now see the impossiblity of capitalism leading to a prosperous society for all, rather than a privelaged minority?
2)You're free to move to a country with lower taxes (at least in the states, and most modern countries). What makes the taxation governments engage in any different than the taxation capitalists engage in?


This is exactly what I was referring to when I said that wages are a reflection of productivity. Competition to attract workers capable of producing value drives the market clearing price of labor up.

Ya, but the one glaring problem is that productivity has increased dramatically while wages have remained static or gone down.
Theory is meaningless (its actually not theory at all) if not based on evidence.


True in some jobs, probably not true in others.
No.. Im pretty sure that was the whole idea behind overtime protection laws in the first place. Its the owners business, you are just a tool. If his tool doesn't work to his standards, at least in a free market society, he can dispose of them as he wishes.
Prior to such laws, you were obligated to work overtime, at normal pay, or you were fired.

Most people in developed countries today are paid in salary and do not receive any overtime pay at all. This is how my job works. I do not mind because the salary is more than fair. I am thankful there is no law in place which requires my employer to only allow me to work 40 hours per week, because doing so would result in me making far less money.
No such law ever existed, or was even proposed.

[MURDOC]

1)Could there not be a central bank that uses 100% reserve banking

That would defeat the entire purpose of the central bank.


2)Since fractional reserve banking is a market phenomenon (meaning it developed on the market) would one not then have to assume that it is caused by some market demand?

It "developed on the market" in the same way that wanting to steal someone's wallet "developed on the market". Just because some activity exists within the framework of a market economy does not make it a "market phenomenon". The fact that banks that did this in free markets lose their credibility and go bankrupt is a demonstration of this.


What is different about your plan than the IMF? They have had the same policy for decades and it has proved disastrous time and again.

My "plan" is to abolish all state barriers to trade and immigration. To what extent does this match with the IMF's plan? To what extent has the IMF succeeded in this? You can probably answer this stuff for yourself.


And most of them move up into jobs that still don't pay the bills.

You are under the impression that "most" people in developed countries have jobs which "don't pay the bills"? Not sure what you are basing this on. It is demonstrably false.


But, more importantly, this still didn't answer the question. How is voluntarily working a sub-subsistence level job any better than being forced to do the same?

Because you can stop and work at another job, or stop working entirely, or start your own business. The key is choice.


1)Do you now see the impossiblity of capitalism leading to a prosperous society for all, rather than a privelaged minority?

no?


2)You're free to move to a country with lower taxes (at least in the states, and most modern countries). What makes the taxation governments engage in any different than the taxation capitalists engage in?

Because I never consented to the government's taxation. The US government has a monopoly on governance within the US. The capitalist I work for does not have a monopoly on employment.


Ya, but the one glaring problem is that productivity has increased dramatically while wages have remained static or gone down.
Theory is meaningless (its actually not theory at all) if not based on evidence.


Like I said, this isn't actually true. Standards of living have increased dramatically.


No.. Im pretty sure that was the whole idea behind overtime protection laws in the first place. Its the owners business, you are just a tool. If his tool doesn't work to his standards, at least in a free market society, he can dispose of them as he wishes.
Prior to such laws, you were obligated to work overtime, at normal pay, or you were fired.

You know this as fact for all jobs that ever took place before these laws existed? All employees were required to work 40+ hours per week? There was no part time employment at all? That was the only point I was trying to make there.


No such law ever existed, or was even proposed.

I'm aware. And I am thankful. Do you think such a law should exist so as to ensure people like me who are paid on salary are not "exploited"?

[molotovcocktail]

This is a myth. Living standards have risen among every demographic and every income group in just about every country in the world over this time.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Contributions_to_Percent_Change_in_Real_GDP_%28the _US_1974-1990%29.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/Contributions_to_Percent_Change_in_Real_GDP_%28the _US_1991-%29.png
It have been a nominal growth.

Canada: cato-at-liberty.org/canadas-spending-cuts-and-economic-growth
I meant countries where cuts in government are the main reason to economic growth, in Canada new oil founds are the main reason to growth, and the site never shows any diagrams of growth in the Canadian economy, it just said it happened.
In addition, it is just a meta-analysis. Just because two things happened in the same time, do not mean they automatically have a connection. For instance,if you take a meta-analysis between shoe size and reading ability, you will find a clear connection...

[MURDOC]

I'm not sure what you are trying to show with those graphs. They seem to be showing the "real GDP" growth rate, which would have to be inflation adjusted. Meaning it is not just nominal growth.


I meant countries where cuts in government are the main reason to economic growth, in Canada new oil founds are the main reason to growth, and the site never shows any diagrams of growth in the Canadian economy, it just said it happened.
In addition, it is just a meta-analysis. Just because two things happened in the same time, do not mean they automatically have a connection. For instance, you will see a clear connection between Shoe size and reading ability among children.

Don't demand examples of countries that have cut spending and experienced economic growth if you are simply going to hand-wave them away by calling it coincidence.

[Zealot]

This is a myth. Living standards have risen among every demographic and every income group in just about every country in the world over this time.
Wow, maybe you need to get out of your country and see how capitalism has worked "miracles". I've been to many countries and can verify that you, Sir, are talking out of your ass. Sound like the slave-traders who justified it by saying they treated them better than last century, lol! A comrade posted this somewhere but I'll post it again: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1336143/Medieval-Britons-twice-rich-poor-Third-World-today.html

[Judicator]

Just wonder, how will reducing the government stop this current problems:

Economic Recession
Hunger in east Africa
Unemployment

Marxism have solutions to all this problems. Libertarians have a solution, but i cannot see how it is supposed to work.

Let's first be clear on what we mean by "reducing the government." We fully support governments defending rights to life, liberty, property, enforcement of contracts, etc.

Recession - under a libertarian government these will still occur, but will be offset by higher rates of long term growth.
Hunger - governments are corrupt, judicial system is weak. Strengthening judicial system/property rights/contracts would create incentives to invest.
Unemployment - less regulation means it's easier to hire people at any wage you want, so wages should move more quickly to the market clearing wage.

Marxists claim to have a solution, why don't you lay it out and explain why it works?

[molotovcocktail]

Don't demand examples of countries that have cut spending and experienced economic growth if you are simply going to hand-wave them away by calling it coincidence.

I do demand a reason to why they have a connection, Canada have found huge amounts of oil.

Unemployment - less regulation means it's easier to hire people at any wage you want, so wages should move more quickly to the market clearing wage.
Why would companies pay people more. Against what you might think, companies are not designed to serve humanity, they are designed to give money to the owner

[Makaru]

After reading through the posts on this thread, I think there's one element that seems to be missing from the discussion. The OP asked Libertarians how they would fix certain problems that are currently plaguing the world today and more than one has responded and each response is based upon the idea that centralized control of the economy by government slows growth and is harmful.

Now, it wasn't so long ago that I called myself a Libertarian (more out of anti-authoritarian reasons) and one reason I abandoned it was because it goes on and on about how the world would be great without government interference and blah blah blah. What really gets me is that Libertarians are so obtuse about how they intend to defend against monopoly when the very nature of capitalism encourages monopolization and, in the absence of some legal authority to restrict it, there can be no way to end it unless the companies monopolizing their respective industries collapse.

Let us assume that what I'll call the "theory of collapse" is valid. First, if it really would work that way, then what is collapsing is not just a company/corporation, but a company that dominates an entire industry. Assuming it received no help from its marginalized competitors, then most of the industry would fail along with it. Such a situation seems to be hardly beneficial to growth. A free market leads to inevitable monopolization as capitalists seek to gain more power and wealth.

Second, and more likely if the collapse theory is correct, other companies who have also become monopolies or incredibly large will agree to buy off portions of the failing company or merge. In this scenario, the economy is still dominated by a few corporations and little changes. Money is shuffled, power is transferred, but the end result is the same.

Marxism promotes the advancement of society into an economic and social system that allows for every worker to participate in the means of production; it is a democratization of society and economy. Capitalism, at least the kind that Libertarianism promotes, leads to a society that becomes decreasingly democratic socially (we are seeing this already; see, Citizens United case) and increasingly authoritarian economically because there is no protection from monopolization. Libertarians argue for an economic system that results in corporatism, which is the antithesis of human happiness and democratic ideals.

(And I didn't even cover corporations that dominate multiple industries.)

[La Comédie Noire]

s sounds more similar to the justifications I've heard made in regard to why socialism has led to miserable living conditions, absolute destitution and inescapable grinding poverty in literally every single instance it has ever been put into practice.

These countries were poor before socialism and actually had their living standards rise due to socialist policies. The way some people argue it's as if they think these countries were capitalist paradises that went downhill after a few misguided intellectuals got the idea of socialism stuck in their heads.

I mean were they hell holes by our standards? Of course they were, but any country that is industrializing is a hell hole by our standards and that includes Britain, France, Germany, and the United States in their own day.

[RGacky3]

We fully support governments defending rights to life, liberty, property, enforcement of contracts, etc.


Does that include defending the commons?


Recession - under a libertarian government these will still occur, but will be offset by higher rates of long term growth.
Hunger - governments are corrupt, judicial system is weak. Strengthening judicial system/property rights/contracts would create incentives to invest.
Unemployment - less regulation means it's easier to hire people at any wage you want, so wages should move more quickly to the market clearing wage.


Hunger: Property rights in the third world ARE protected, believe me, connoco philips has no problem with property in the third world. The reason people starve is because of the nature of hte food market, prices need to stay high so that farmers can make a profit and poor people cannot afford food.

Unemployment: So basically, we'll have an economy of sweatshop workers ... unemployment happens when productivity goes up and demand goes down (or stays the same).

[molotovcocktail]

Marxists claim to have a solution, why don't you lay it out and explain why it works?
This is how Marxism will solve these problems:

Hunger in east Africa should not be a problem in the first place. We over-produce food in this world. And we got several food technologies that poor farmers cannot afford. In a communist society, those problems will not exist because all technology will be available.

A recession will not happen in a socialist society of obvious reasons. Recessions are impossible in an economy without a stock market.

The state will provide jobs to those that do not find a job themselves. In addition, you will not suffer if you do not have a job ,the state will fill your needs.

[RGacky3]

A recession will not happen in a socialist society of obvious reasons. Recessions are impossible in an economy without a stock market.


Yes they are, all you need is an excess of production and you have a major problem, or a major missallocation of capital.


Hunger in east Africa should not be a problem in the first place. We over-produce food in this world. And we got several food technologies that poor farmers cannot afford. In a communist society, those problems will not exist because all technology will be available.


And mainly because the profit motive will be out of the food distribution system.


The state will provide jobs to those that do not find a job themselves. In addition, you will not suffer if you do not have a job ,the state will fill your needs.

And also maximising profit is'nt the main issue, so if revenue increases and productivity increases there is no need to lay people off, overall you can juts lower the work week, or lower the retirement age.

[molotovcocktail]

The technology will improve drastically in a socialist society, because of the rise in IQ due to universal school. Therfore will we experience an explosion in production, life span, and food production.

So basically, we'll have an economy of sweatshop workers
This will only be the situation in the beginning, we will quickly invent robots to do the dirty jobs.

[ComradeMan]

In addition, it is just a meta-analysis. Just because two things happened in the same time, do not mean they automatically have a connection. For instance,if you take a meta-analysis between shoe size and reading ability, you will find a clear connection...

It seems to me a hell of a lot of economics is meta-analysis.

Perhaps Marx was guilty of this too... perhaps the rise of the bourgeoisie was just a coincidence.... :lol:

[RGacky3]

This will only be the situation in the beginning, we will quickly invent robots to do the dirty jobs.

This was in response to Judicator, about lowering employment standards.

I don't think we need sweatshop workers NOW, we have the technology and productivity to have the necessary production without sweatshops.


The technology will improve drastically in a socialist society, because of the rise in IQ due to universal school. Therfore will we experience an explosion in production, life span, and food production.


You can't make the argument because there is no direct causation, thats an assumption.

We have enough productoin, and we have enough resources, and enough medical technology, the problem is mainly distribution, we'll have innovations, but lack innovation and technology is not the reason for the problems under capitalism, distribution is.

[molotovcocktail]

It seems to me a hell of a lot of economics is meta-analysis.

Perhaps Marx was guilty of this too... perhaps the rise of the bourgeoisie was just a coincidence....
meta-analysis are not automatically a coincidence, you just need to come with an argument that it is a connection.

[RGacky3]

Perhaps Marx was guilty of this too... perhaps the rise of the bourgeoisie was just a coincidence.... http://www.revleft.com/vb/question-libertarians-t162819/revleft/smilies2/laugh.gif

ehhh, read some marx, he's not making corrolation arguments, he's making very secure and verafiable logical connections.

(thats much more what austrians do, well a Fed EXISTS and the government EXISTS, so all of capitalisms problems MUST be there fault, no logical connection.)

[molotovcocktail]

It seems to me a hell of a lot of economics is meta-analysis.

Perhaps Marx was guilty of this too... perhaps the rise of the bourgeoisie was just a coincidence....
Meta-analysis are the only possible analysis in social studies. In order to check if a theory is right, you need to exclude other reasons before you conclude. If you don't, you are unscientifically.

[ComradeMan]

ehhh, read some marx, he's not making corrolation arguments, he's making very secure and verafiable logical connections.

And from those connections he made predictions that did not come to pass, and the revolutions that built upon those connections failed in the end.

So, how secure, logical and verifiable were those "connections"?


Meta-analysis are the only possible analysis in social studies. In order to check if a theory is right, you need to exclude other reasons before you conclude. If you don't, you are unscientifically.

You are unscientifical trying to pass off something which isn't fundamentally scientific as a science.

[molotovcocktail]

You are unscientifical trying to pass off something which isn't fundamentally scientific as a science.
No, it is not fundamentally scientific, it is just that in social economics, it is the best option. Because a scientific experiment is frankly impossible. A meta-analysis will of course always be inferior to a real scientific experiment, but it is better than nothing.

[ComradeMan]

No, it is not fundamentally scientific, it is just that in social economics, it is the best option. Because a scientific experiment is frankly impossible. A meta-analysis will of course always be inferior to a real scientific experiment, but it is better than nothing.

So what about the claims made by Marxists, that marxism is scientific?

[RGacky3]

So what about the claims made by Marxists, that marxism is scientific?

Well it depends what you mean by science, it is definately not a hard science like physics or chemistry, where things can be determined concretely and things can be predicted with almost 100% security.

But take for example Zoology, you can study the actions of animals and make scientific overall generalizations or tendancies, but you can never by 100% absolutely sure how animals will act, the same with economics, you can study tendancies and general trends and be very sure about them, its the study of incentive structures, but you won't be as 100% sure as measuring gravity for example.

[Baseball]

but any country that is industrializing is a hell hole by our standards and that includes Britain, France, Germany, and the United States in their own day.

This is completely true- all nascent industrial countries are hellish.
But getting ahead in life (which industrialism allows for a country) involves making sacrifice.

So was the sacrifice which socialism demands in such less than the sacrifice demanded by capitalism?

[Robert]

But getting ahead in life (which industrialism allows for a country) involves making sacrifice.

Disagree.

Read Mutiny on the Bounty.

Primitivism in the tropics rules.

[Revolution starts with U]

That would defeat the entire purpose of the central bank.

Well that didn't answer anything.




It "developed on the market" in the same way that wanting to steal someone's wallet "developed on the market". Just because some activity exists within the framework of a market economy does not make it a "market phenomenon". The fact that banks that did this in free markets lose their credibility and go bankrupt is a demonstration of this.

I think we have a candidate for both:
1)Worst attempt at an intelligent respons
2)Best doublespeak

These were private banks using money contractually obligated to them. How could this be like taking someone wallet? These private banks were given money by private individuals who knew the policy of the bank to begin with. How is this like stealing somoene's wallet?
More importantly, how will you enforce non-fractional reserve banking in a free market?
And on top of that; how is the fact that banks did this and lost credibility (they didn't until the crash) evidence that FR banking is stealing? Wouldn't that, to you, be evidence that market is self-regulating?




My "plan" is to abolish all state barriers to trade and immigration. To what extent does this match with the IMF's plan? To what extent has the IMF succeeded in this? You can probably answer this stuff for yourself.



Through conditionalities, Structural Adjustment Programs generally implement "free market" programs and policy. These programs include internal changes (notably privatization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization) and deregulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation)) as well as external ones, especially the reduction of trade barriers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_barriers)...
Some of the conditions for structural adjustment can include:

Cutting expenditures, also known as austerity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity).
Focusing economic output on direct export and resource extraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_extraction),
Devaluation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devaluation) of currencies,
Trade liberalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_liberalization), or lifting import and export restrictions,
Increasing the stability of investment (by supplementing foreign direct investment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_direct_investment) with the opening of domestic stock markets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_markets)),
Balancing budgets (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balanced_budget) and not overspending,
Removing price controls (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_control) and state subsidies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidy),
Privatization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatization), or divestiture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divestiture) of all or part of state-owned enterprises,
Enhancing the rights of foreign investors vis-a-vis national laws,
Improving governance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governance) and fighting corruption (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_corruption).
These conditions have also been sometimes labeled as the Washington Consensus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Consensus).

What exactly is different about your plan than the IMFs?



You are under the impression that "most" people in developed countries have jobs which "don't pay the bills"? Not sure what you are basing this on. It is demonstrably false.

Typical of capitalists to just outright deny the existence of anyone but the developed countries. But either way, yes. I am under the impression that most working people in developed countries are in debt up to their eyebrows; and that is why they can still pay their bills.




Because you can stop and work at another job, or stop working entirely, or start your own business. The key is choice.

So there's no difference, other than that you can choose it?
So, if it was shown that sometimes you really had no choice, or your only choice is between one tyrant and another, would you agree that it can be exactly the same as slavery?




no?

You'll get it one day. Or you won't. w/e :cool:




Because I never consented to the government's taxation. The US government has a monopoly on governance within the US. The capitalist I work for does not have a monopoly on employment.

I never consented to the property system. The capitalist my have a monopoly on use of his possessions (the definition of private property, right?). The capitalist you work for does in fact have a monopoly on employment, specifically employment using his land/goods/capital.




Like I said, this isn't actually true. Standards of living have increased dramatically.

Any standards of living gains have come with increases in consumer debt, not wages. Wages have remained static or gone down for most people.




You know this as fact for all jobs that ever took place before these laws existed? All employees were required to work 40+ hours per week? There was no part time employment at all? That was the only point I was trying to make there.

Fair enough. But you should have known that is not what I was saying.
My point was that before overtime protection, if your boss wanted you to work 50hrs, you did it at market price, or you were fired. The labor movement forced the state to protect labor against harsh employment policies (which do nothing but keep more people unemployed).


I'm aware. And I am thankful. Do you think such a law should exist so as to ensure people like me who are paid on salary are not "exploited"?
No, if you want to work 60hrs a week, (you're kind-of a self-serving dick :lol:, but) that is your choice.

[RGacky3]

And from those connections he made predictions that did not come to pass, and the revolutions that built upon those connections failed in the end.

So, how secure, logical and verifiable were those "connections"?

most of his predictions did end up happening, the other ones did'nt because of outside interventions, not becuase they were untrue, for example I can tell you that someone is going to die with a certain illness, but if you put them on life support and they live a lot longer, it doest'nt make the diagnosis not true.

Also those "revolutions" were not based on those contradictions .... How can a revolution be BASED on contradictions in capitalism, and they did'nt even address the main contradiction, the dispossession of the surplus from the worker by the capitalist.

[MURDOC]

Well that didn't answer anything.

Your question makes no sense. Is it "possible" within the laws of reality for some entity to violently cartelize an industry and than not exploit their cartel? Of course its "possible". But it defeats the entire purpose of the cartel's existence.



I think we have a candidate for both:
1)Worst attempt at an intelligent respons
2)Best doublespeak

These were private banks using money contractually obligated to them. How could this be like taking someone wallet? These private banks were given money by private individuals who knew the policy of the bank to begin with. How is this like stealing somoene's wallet?
More importantly, how will you enforce non-fractional reserve banking in a free market?
And on top of that; how is the fact that banks did this and lost credibility (they didn't until the crash) evidence that FR banking is stealing? Wouldn't that, to you, be evidence that market is self-regulating?

You seem to be misunderstanding the point I was trying to make.

Pointing to FRB and saying that, since it exists in free markets, it is "the choice" of the market and "a market phenomenon" is fallacious. It makes equal sense to call mugging and thievery "market phenomenon" because they exist in market economies. I wasn't trying to equate FRB with stealing someone's wallet.

Full reserve banking will come about naturally in a competitive, free banking system because consumers will naturally want to keep their money in banks that practice it. Remove the state privilege from the equation and this will happen without coercion or regulatory oversight.


What exactly is different about your plan than the IMFs?

Not much, evidently. How effective has the IMF been in implementing this plan? (hint: not very. The US doesn't even follow these rules).


So there's no difference, other than that you can choose it?
So, if it was shown that sometimes you really had no choice, or your only choice is between one tyrant and another, would you agree that it can be exactly the same as slavery?

If my choices were between slavery and slavery than yes, that would be the same as slavery. But thankfully this will never be the case in competitive, free labor markets.


I never consented to the property system.

Fine. Then don't make property claims. I have no problem with that. Those of us who wish to work within the property system would like it if you didn't interfere with our lives, though.


The capitalist my have a monopoly on use of his possessions (the definition of private property, right?). The capitalist you work for does in fact have a monopoly on employment, specifically employment using his land/goods/capital.

Correct. You have simply shown here how silly the entire idea of "monopoly" is, though. The capitalist has a monopoly on using his land/goods/capital, but this "monopoly" does not confer upon him any sort of market power because there are literally thousands of competitors that have similar "monopolies".

Its like pointing out that McDonald's has a monopoly on Big Macs and then being confused why Big Macs don't cost $1000s of dollars. The reasoning is simple; the price must reflect competition from other cheeseburger manufactures, and for that matter other restaurants and even grocery stores. McDonad's monopoly on the Big Mac does not give it any market power because there are other ways to get food than McDonalds.

Similarly, a capitalist having a "monopoly" on the use of his land/goods/capital confers no special market power onto him because he has to compete with other capitalists.


Any standards of living gains have come with increases in consumer debt, not wages. Wages have remained static or gone down for most people.

Not really true.

econtalk.org/archives/2011/10/bruce_meyer_on.html

Russ Roberts: "... the claim is made that the rising tide did not lift all boats. Rather, it only lifted the big, rich yachts. The dinghies of the poor and the middle class did not share in that tide of improvement, share in that wellbeing. What are your thoughts on these claims?

Bruce Meyer: "They are basically wrong. And that's what 10 years of research by myself and James Sullivan at Notre Dame has shown. If you measure incomes better, accounting properly for inflation, median incomes have gone up by about 50% since 1980. And if you look at consumption, it's gone up by a similar amount over that whole period"

Of course, you don't actually have to do that much research to come to these conclusions. Just talk to an average american family; father and mother both age ~30. Ask them how many cars, TVs, cell phones and computers they have, how big their house is, whether they have central heating and air. Then ask the same questions to this couple's parents in regard to what their life was like when they were ~30. If they are anything like most Americans, the difference will most likely be substantial.


No, if you want to work 60hrs a week, (you're kind-of a self-serving dick :lol:, but) that is your choice.

So why should I have the freedom to do this, but those who work for wages cannot?

[Revolution starts with U]

Your question makes no sense. Is it "possible" within the laws of reality for some entity to violently cartelize an industry and than not exploit their cartel? Of course its "possible". But it defeats the entire purpose of the cartel's existence.

How exactly did the central banks "violently cartelize an industry?" Now, you're just making stuff up.
Why could there not be a central bank that practices 100% reserves?



You seem to be misunderstanding the point I was trying to make.

Pointing to FRB and saying that, since it exists in free markets, it is "the choice" of the market and "a market phenomenon" is fallacious. It makes equal sense to call mugging and thievery "market phenomenon" because they exist in market economies. I wasn't trying to equate FRB with stealing someone's wallet.

You weren't?
Did you not say "FRB is a market phenom just like wanting to steal someone's wallet is?"


Full reserve banking will come about naturally in a competitive, free banking system because consumers will naturally want to keep their money in banks that practice it. Remove the state privilege from the equation and this will happen without coercion or regulatory oversight.

Except that, you know, when their were no regulations and state privelages in place, private consumers chose banks which practiced FRB.
And why not? It generally means they can offer more loans. Everybody, until the buble collapses, thinks they are too smart to get taken.




Not much, evidently. How effective has the IMF been in implementing this plan? (hint: not very. The US doesn't even follow these rules).

Oh, they have been very effective in the over-exploited world (the 3rd/under-developed world).




If my choices were between slavery and slavery than yes, that would be the same as slavery. But thankfully this will never be the case in competitive, free labor markets.

Well, that wasn't my question... but w/e



Fine. Then don't make property claims. I have no problem with that. Those of us who wish to work within the property system would like it if you didn't interfere with our lives, though.

I wont interfere with your life. YOU will interfere with mine. Im just gonna merrily stroll up to your pond to enjoy its tranquility, and YOU are going to come at me with a gun telling me to get off. And then, through some strange twist of logic, you will call ME the aggressor!




Correct. You have simply shown here how silly the entire idea of "monopoly" is, though. The capitalist has a monopoly on using his land/goods/capital, but this "monopoly" does not confer upon him any sort of market power because there are literally thousands of competitors that have similar "monopolies".

And there are literally hundreds of competing states....



Similarly, a capitalist having a "monopoly" on the use of his land/goods/capital confers no special market power onto him because he has to compete with other capitalists.

No market power? Or is his market power tempered by competiton?
Couldn't a democratic workplace be also tempered by competition?




Not really true.

Debt is what accounts for those increases, not wages. I will read your paper. But I imagnie it is a dishonest propaganda piece (econtalk... really?).




So why should I have the freedom to do this, but those who work for wages cannot?

They can work 60hrs a week too if they want to. They, however, cannot be forced to work 60hrs a week, at market wage, under the risk of firing.
Its not my choice, it is liberal response to class struggle that created that.

[MURDOC]

How exactly did the central banks "violently cartelize an industry?" Now, you're just making stuff up.
Why could there not be a central bank that practices 100% reserves?

I am not "making stuff up". All actions taken by the state inherently are done through violence. Establishing a central bank is no different.

As I said, there "could be" a central bank that practices 100% reserves, there just never would.


You weren't?
Did you not say "FRB is a market phenom just like wanting to steal someone's wallet is?"

It was meant to be a hyperbolic example.

Stealing someone's wallet is something that might occur in a free market society. That does not make it a "market phenomenon".

FRB is something that might occur in a free market society. That does not make it a "market phenomenon".

I don't know how else I can make this more clear. Are you not a native English speaker? If so, I apologize and I will try and use less complicated writing techniques.


Except that, you know, when their were no regulations and state privelages in place, private consumers chose banks which practiced FRB.
And why not? It generally means they can offer more loans. Everybody, until the buble collapses, thinks they are too smart to get taken.

This isn't an argument against anything I've said.


Oh, they have been very effective in the over-exploited world (the 3rd/under-developed world).

This is incorrect



And there are literally hundreds of competing states....

States do not have to compete with one another by virtue of the fact that they have established territorial monopolies. I would have no problem with a "state" if user fees were voluntary and free competition among "states" within a given area was not forbidden via threats of violence. A "free market" in states, so to speak, would be fine. Of course, that would defeat the entire purpose of the state's existence, as everyone would simply choose to, like me, subscribe to no state at all.



No market power? Or is his market power tempered by competiton?

semantics, meaningless difference.


Couldn't a democratic workplace be also tempered by competition?

Sure. "Democratic workplaces" are not illegal. The primary reason they do not exist in abundance is because they are far less efficient than "traditional" work places.




Debt is what accounts for those increases, not wages. I will read your paper. But I imagnie it is a dishonest propaganda piece (econtalk... really?).

The figure I quoted is talking about income. He says nothing about consumption, which would be where increased debt would play a role.

The average American has about $8000 worth of debt. Certainly a lot, but not so unbelievable an amount as to drastically alter the easily verifiable and observed fact that Americans are wealthier today than they were in decades past.



They can work 60hrs a week too if they want to. They, however, cannot be forced to work 60hrs a week, at market wage, under the risk of firing.

They cannot, however, work 60 hours a week at their straight salary. That would be illegal.

I assume you are not naive enough to think that a law as silly as the one in question actually results in an increase in overall wages. Since the law does not actually do anything to increase productivity, its only effect is in removing flexibility and choice for the employer and employee. If an employer requires that work in excess of 40 hours be completed, and he cannot justify paying the time and a half via increased productivty, the result will simply be a decrease in the base wage to compensate for the legally required overtime pay.


Its not my choice, it is liberal response to class struggle that created that.

Nice dodge. Do you support the law or not?

[Revolution starts with U]

I am not "making stuff up". All actions taken by the state inherently are done through violence. Establishing a central bank is no different.

As I said, there "could be" a central bank that practices 100% reserves, there just never would.

Hyperbolic rhetoric and nothing more. Sure, all actions taken by the state implicitly assume violence (not inhrently practice, as you are suggesting).




It was meant to be a hyperbolic example.

Stealing someone's wallet is something that might occur in a free market society. That does not make it a "market phenomenon".

FRB is something that might occur in a free market society. That does not make it a "market phenomenon".

I don't know how else I can make this more clear. Are you not a native English speaker? If so, I apologize and I will try and use less complicated writing techniques.

Your problem is more the truth of the statement than your clarity in conveying it :thumbup:




This isn't an argument against anything I've said.

Saying "on a free market people chose FRB (more than 100% reserves)" is not a refutation of the argument "on a free market people will not choose FRB?"




This is incorrect

No, it's not. (Anyone can baselessly assert something)



States do not have to compete with one another by virtue of the fact that they have established territorial monopolies. I would have no problem with a "state" if user fees were voluntary and free competition among "states" within a given area was not forbidden via threats of violence. A "free market" in states, so to speak, would be fine. Of course, that would defeat the entire purpose of the state's existence, as everyone would simply choose to, like me, subscribe to no state at all.(Emphasis mine)

You often make decisions for other people, don't you? This is not the first time you have done this...
But either way:
1) Do not most states allow you to emigrate?
2) Given 1, is not your choice to remain in the state you live in (assuming you are allowed to emigrate) voluntary?





semantics, meaningless difference.

It is semantics. That was my point. You were expressing yourself incorrectly. He does not have "no monopoly power." Rather, his monopoly power is, supposedly, tempered by competition.



Sure. "Democratic workplaces" are not illegal. The primary reason they do not exist in abundance is because they are far less efficient than "traditional" work places.

Different debate for a different thread. But my response would be "efficient for whom?"




The figure I quoted is talking about income. He says nothing about consumption, which would be where increased debt would play a role.

I did leave out one important component.
Any living standards increases in the past few decades can be attributed mostly to:
1) Debt
2) increasing processing power

Im about halfway through your link, and all I can see so far is that he has a problem with how inflation is measured. I don't want to give any definitive response to this yet, as I have not yet finished it, nor gotten to the meat of it yet.



They cannot, however, work 60 hours a week at their straight salary. That would be illegal.

And?

I assume you are not naive enough to think that a law as silly as the one in question actually results in an increase in overall wages. Since the law does not actually do anything to increase productivity, its only effect is in removing flexibility and choice for the employer and employee. If an employer requires that work in excess of 40 hours be completed, and he cannot justify paying the time and a half via increased productivty, the result will simply be a decrease in the base wage to compensate for the legally required overtime pay.
No. But what it does do is disincentivise overtime work. WHat this does is incentivise more employment; the capitalist does not want to pay the overtime price. T'will be cheaper for him to just hire another person.
... that is, if he needs the extra work. If he just wants some extra work, he will most likely do as you have predicted: cut overall wages.

Capitalism simply can do nothing other than consolidate wealth, and therefore power, into fewer and fewer hands.



Nice dodge. Do you support the law or not?
Sure. As much as I support kings who tempered the injustices of the nobility (as if they didn't commit enough of their own injustices :rolleyes:), I support this law.
Does that mean I support "capitalism with a pretty face," ie, reformed capitalism. Absolutely not.

[anarcho-communist4]

I would describe myself as somewhere in the libertarian/anarcho-capitalist spectrum,



I'm not sure if someones already said it but once i read Anarcho-capitalist i stopped reading. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. It makes zero sense. btw.

[IcarusAngel]

MURDOC is your typical crazy Austrian. These people are crazy and they don't leave until banned.

Saying Central Banks = central planning is just like saying universal protection of property is central planning. In fact, universal protection of property as Libertarians define it would be one of the greatest interventions in the economy that would dwarf all other interventions.

Not only are Libertarians like MURDOC crazy, they are the worst types of statists you will ever encounter, believing they can define who owns and who doesn't own property.

Anyway, EVERY single attempt at full-reserve banking has been done by the state. There has never been an attempt by the market to establish complete full reserve banks. During the earliest days of banking in places like Scotland, Sweden, Canada, they had very little regulation. They did not practice any full-reserve banking. On the other hand, all 100% reserve banks were government sponsored enterprises. Every single one, such as the Swiss National Bank. And they depended on forced patronage, laws banning other types of banking, and government subsidies.

Here is Schumpeter on Fractional Reserve Banking:


“In this sense, therefore, we define the kernel of the credit phenomenon in the following manner: credit is essentially the creation of purchasing power for the purpose of transferring it to the entrepreneur, but not simply the transfer of existing purchasing power. The creation of purchasing power characterises, in principle, the method by which development is carried out in a system with private property and division of labour. By credit, entrepreneurs are given access to the social stream of goods before they have acquired the normal claim to it. It temporarily substitutes, as it were, a fiction of this claim for the claim itself. Granting credit in this sense operates as an order on the economic system to accommodate itself to the purposes of the entrepreneur, as an order on the goods which he needs: it means entrusting him with productive forces. It is only thus that economic development could arise from the mere circular flow in perfect equilibrium. And this function constitutes the keystone of the modern credit structure” (Schumpeter 1983 [1934]: 107).From a leftist perspective, a capitalism system with fractional-reserve banking would be better because it makes it more difficult to consolidate the money supply. Prices were actually MORE stable during the Keynesian golden age period, because the gold standard suffered from deflation. Deflation generally punishes debtors (the working class) whereas inflation generally punishes borrowers. *

David Graber has actually discredited the Austrian theory of the origins of money and all of their supposed claims of how they market 'would work' if we removed the Fed are suspect.


Anthropology is full of examples of societies without markets or money, but with elaborate systems of penalties for various forms of injuries or slights. And it is when someone has killed your brother, or severed your finger, that one is most likely to stickle, and say, "The law says 27 heifers of the finest quality and if they're not of the finest quality, this means war!" It's also the situation where there is most likely to be a need to establish proportional values: if the culprit does not have heifers, but wishes to substitute silver plates, the victim is very likely to insist that the equivalent be exact. (There is a reason the word 'pay' comes from a root that means 'to pacify'.)An interview with Graber (http://itc.conversationsnetwork.org/shows/detail5031.html#).

*Correction: Inflation punishes lenders.

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not sure if someones already said it but once i read Anarcho-capitalist i stopped reading. Anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. It makes zero sense. btw.
This is all well, good, and true. But do you know WHY? Because they are going to lay the same charge at your feet...



Not only are Libertarians like MURDOC crazy, they are the worst types of statists you will ever encounter, believing they can define who owns and who doesn't own property.

Anyway, EVERY single attempt at full-reserve banking has been done by the state. There has never been an attempt by the market to establish complete full reserve banks. During the earliest days of banking in places like Scotland, Sweden, Canada, they had very little regulation. They did not practice any full-reserve banking. On the other hand, all 100% reserve banks were government sponsored enterprises. Every single one, such as the Swiss National Bank. And they depended on forced patronage, laws banning other types of banking, and government subsidies.

Hmm... I did not know this. It will provide me with excellent cannon fodder :thumbup:



David Graber has actually discredited the Austrian theory of the origins of money and all of their supposed claims of how they market 'would work' if we removed the Fed are suspect.

The only thing worse than austrians continuing to exist is that people are increasingly taking them seriously :lol:

[IcarusAngel]

Notice how Graber points out that markets and currency emerged from plunder!

As for the ABCT, basically it works like this:

Say you're in a restaurant, and they two different types of items. Some items can be cooked in the microwave, like stir-fry. Others have to be heated in an oven, like a turkey. The waiters take information from the customers about what to prepare. However, a central planner can enter the picture and trick the cooks into thinking that people want more of the food that takes longer to cook than they truly desire. This creates the "boom" in preparing meals that take long to cook, followed by a "bust."

How the economy actually works is that the chefs have many different recipes they try. Many will not be popular, but some will result in exponential progress. When the CHEFS (business men) become optimistic, they try new recipes, thus creating a boom.

For reasons that baffle real economists, Austrians prefer the former explanation, even though the latter makes more sense in terms of the dot com bubble and even the financial schemes (CDS, CDOs, subprime mortgages) that were invented by the market.

What most concerns socialists is the response of the Austrians. The Austrians say that we should do nothing and let the market return to market clearing prices. This is a bit like saying that we should deny a drunk who's fallen into a lake blankets and stimulus on the grounds that his original problem was that he was too warm.

Austrians say nothing that isn't said by Marxist crisis theory, which is that capitalism is unstable, and these unsustainable dynamics are likely to end in crisis.

[La Comédie Noire]

So was the sacrifice which socialism demands in such less than the sacrifice demanded by capitalism?

I think they were about the same, countless lives were lost or severely reduced in quality in order to industrialize in Capitalism and Socialism.

[Makaru]

States do not have to compete with one another by virtue of the fact that they have established territorial monopolies. I would have no problem with a "state" if user fees were voluntary and free competition among "states" within a given area was not forbidden via threats of violence. A "free market" in states, so to speak, would be fine. Of course, that would defeat the entire purpose of the state's existence, as everyone would simply choose to, like me, subscribe to no state at all.

Perhaps you didn't see my post on page 2 but I specifically pointed out the blatant inconsistency of a Libertarian condemning monopoly while providing no protection against it in a "free" market. I invite you to read it and offer a response. I'm interested to see how many somersaults you have to do to provide us with a rational explanation as to why your preferred system is superior despite the inherent contradictions in goals (free market & competition vs. capital expansion).


Sure. "Democratic workplaces" are not illegal. The primary reason they do not exist in abundance is because they are far less efficient than "traditional" work places.

Um, yeah. It has nothing to do with the fact that the capitalist class has no interest in democratizing the workplace nor is there any benefit in it for the capitalist (from their viewpoint). I would also imagine that worker co-operatives and other variations of the democratic workplace are also foreign concepts to most of the American population. I can't say for other places in the world.

I can't post links yet but check out the Alvarado Street Bakery's website. They seem to do just fine under the co-op model and they aren't the only company.