Agorism

[Left-Reasoning]

Don't fall into hayenmill's false paradigm BS. Of course deregulation has proven to be a failure. That is what happens when an elite are allowed unlimited access to resources.

The worst of all possible worlds is deregulated capitalism.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes. I was waiting for someone to say that. But it's true. Furthermore, there is no possible way it helps the leftist agenda. As if you tell people you support egalitarianism, or equality, or democratic participation in economics, and then you tell them you support deregulation, they would think you're a contradictory or nonsensical idiot. Even the argument that it somehow "speeds" up the revolution is ridiciulous.

First of all in deregulated capitalism the threat of fascism is much greater. This is why many Latin American countries (and leftists) believe in social democracy, not directly going to worker coops (although that would be acceptable too).

And then there is just no evidence it speeds up a revolution.

Anyway, if anarchism is not possible, I'd like to see a move towards a type of guild socialism, where the government only plays a role in regulating the guilds and maybe in law enforcement and the environment. Certainly the one thing the capitalist state should not be doing any longer is providing the conditions for a market-capitalist economy, which is severely flawed, but that is mainly what the governments of the world do today.

[Havet]

Think of the car companies and the way they designed steering wheels that impaled drivers, used unsafe overall construction, and ignored safety measures. Or the way they kept back MPG standards (even Reagan had increased them).

Source or it didnt happen

This is the guy who claimed the all research in programming and computers was done by the free-market.

I never claimed that

[Zanthorus]

You're already incorrectly conflating the current society, wherein only a lucky few achieve such level of wealth, with my proposed society with equality of opportunity and no artificial privileges granted by an institution with the monopoly on the use of force.

And you've failed so far to show how a market society could have equality of oppurtunity.

Its sad that you're starting to approximate the kind of low intellectual posting many people at revleft engage on.

My point, although expressed in a rather asinine way, is still valid. If one class in society is poor and the other is rich and the poor people are struggling to survive and the only way they can break out is to break the rules of the free market then they should. They can't just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

Yeah, its certainly "free-market" to control the money supply...

The government can't control the money supply. Thats why monetarism has gone out of fashion.

And it's certainly free-market to even allow corporations (which are legal fictions granted privilege by the state) to even exist, let alone collude with the state to decrease their taxes.

If you're a real free-marketer how can you deny the existence of corporations as long as they're voluntary associations?

Kevin doesn't follow some form of misean economics, he integrates it with other concepts:

"In his book he attempts to synthesize Austrian economics with the labor theory of value, or "Austrianize" it, by incorporating both subjectivism and time preference.[10]"

Yes he does follow some form of Misean economics. He accepts most of the usual austrian arguments about the market being awesome then dresses it up in marxist language.

You just gave an example about Britain, why don't you show me the source from where you saw that example? Prove to me that the state couldn't control the money supply and was forced into reacting to those market forces.

Okey Dokey:

Maggie Thatcher's embrace of monetarism also provides an evocative counter-example [that the state is not something merely imposed from above on the pure market]. Despite her toughness and her adherence to milton Friedman's mantra that controlling the money supply would control inflation, even Thatcher's england was forced to abandon monetary targeting - setting some goal for the rate fo growth of the money supply in order to force down the rate of inflation - because it could never meet the targets. If 'The Iron Lady' couldn't control the moneu supply, then no one could: Evidence enough that the Post-Keynesians are colser to the mark than the Austrians.

"As for the specific question asked by a reader related to the issue of how a Wal-Mart or McDonald’s might be communalized, I am skeptical as to whether or not large retail and fast food chains of the type we are currently familiar with could even exist in a genuine free market. The success of these chains results from their ability to undercut their local competitors with lower prices. But their lower prices are possible only because of the massive state subsidies to trucking, shipping, infrastructure, aviation, etc. If such corporations had to cover their own costs in these areas, they might not be able to compete with local alternatives.(12) "

So its goodbye to mass transport in the free market? Good to know.

[Havet]

And you've failed so far to show how a market society could have equality of oppurtunity.

I've refuted your arguments, so I don't know what you are talking about.

My point, although expressed in a rather asinine way, is still valid. If one class in society is poor and the other is rich and the poor people are struggling to survive and the only way they can break out is to break the rules of the free market then they should. They can't just pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

I don't expect to have that poor of a "class" unless they choose to become so, which would be indeed irrational.

The government can't control the money supply. Thats why monetarism has gone out of fashion.

Okey Dokey

Of course the government cannot control the money supply. Or better: it can, but it will collapse under its centralized bureaucratic actions and lack of competitive signs.

I mean, is it any wonder that we only started having high degrees of constant growth in inflation when government cut all the links of money to reality (aka gold, in the case of america)?

(Historical innaccuracy: it was Reagan, not Nixon, who "slammed" the gold window)

If you're a real free-marketer how can you deny the existence of corporations as long as they're voluntary associations?

There's nothing voluntary about forcing people to recognize special privilege to certain businesses.

Yes he does follow some form of Misean economics. He accepts most of the usual austrian arguments about the market being awesome then dresses it up in marxist language.

Whatever

So its goodbye to mass transport in the free market? Good to know.

What? You don't even make sense. Just because they are heavily subsidized doesn't mean they will disappear if the subsidies disappear. It just means that there will be more competitive signals to tell the owners of such mass transportation systems (whether a collective or an individual) how efficient their actions are.

[RGacky3]

Really?

How can deregulation be blamed in an environment full or regulation and artificial privilege granted to corporations?

I don't know, ask any top economist.

Interesting that you think of my posts as "rants". It says a lot about your character.

I call them rants because they are a lot of info, but you don't actually connect them to each other or to events, I can also say that during the 30s jazz music became really popular and thus jazz music was partially to blame for the great depression, that does'nt mean there is any causal evidence.

Any way, about the social democracies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index, theres just one, You compare the United States wealth to things like poverty index, and general standards of living of social democracies, and the equality of the wealth is always toward the social democracies.

[Ovi]

How in the hell can you think that there will be equality of oppurtunity if people can get vastly better access to education resources simply by virtue of their parents wealth?

Nobody is preventing you from organizing with others and funding a non-profit based education institution, or one that places knowledge available independently of wealth.

This is where your "equal opportunity" idea goes to shit. To have equal opportunity we don't need to make free education an idea, we need to make it real, to supply those institutions as a norm. Otherwise there is no equal opportunity, but only the thought that it might be possible, though it's not today.

[Havet]

I don't know, ask any top economist.

I'm asking you. Most economists offer as a solution more power to the State, which will just make it easier for corporations to gain more power as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index, theres just one, You compare the United States wealth to things like poverty index, and general standards of living of social democracies, and the equality of the wealth is always toward the social democracies.

You will be please to know that Sweden has been increasing its "economic freedom" in recent years, which is partly a reason for its great position on that Index.

http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Sweden

[FONT=&quot][/FONT][FONT=&quot]Swedish law since 1992 mandates that the government separate the financing of schools from the administration of schools, as Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman proposed in 1955. Sweden’s independent schools are now financed on par with municipal schools, so long as they are approved. [/FONT][FONT=&quot]Since the reform, Sweden has shown the following advances:[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot] [/FONT][FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]- Competition created by this new supply of schools has increased performance in Sweden’s municipal (government-run) schools.

- Most independent schools in Sweden are run by for-profit educational companies, with no detrimental effects.

- There is absolutely no evidence that the new “voucher system” has created a scenario where the rich are supplemented in their private choices. In fact, poorer Swedes choose independent schools at higher rates than do wealthy families.

- Teachers’ unions in Sweden support the reform measures and indicate that they prefer to work in independent schools, where working conditions are better.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
"[/FONT][FONT=&quot]School Choice Works! The Case of Sweden[/FONT][FONT=&quot]" (PDF) por Fredrik Bergstrom and Mikael Sandstrom.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

The two largest teachers’ unions are converts to the voucher system, probably because their colleagues who work inside the burgeoning market for independent schools are generally more satisfied with working conditions than those who remain in public schools. In a poll conducted by [FONT=&quot]Svenskt Näringsliv[/FONT], the Confederation of Swedish Enterprise, students overwhelmingly confirmed they liked the new freedom of choice.

Parents are on board, too, because they like the academic improvement that vouchers have generated. A 2001 study from the Swedish Ministry of Finance showed that, far from deteriorating as a result of competition from independent schools, municipal schools have been forced to make better use of their resources and improve their quality. The study described a strong positive correlation between the amount of students in independent schools in a municipality and high test results in that municipality’s schools.

###
The rapid growth of independent schools—before vouchers, they held fewer than one percent of Swedish students; now more than ten percent of secondary and over six percent of elementary students attend them—did confirm one negative prediction. They have increased the level of educational segregation. Religious and ethnic minorities are placing their children in schools that cater to their special needs, as are parents who seek a specialized pedagogical emphasis, like music.

But in another important sense, vouchers have reduced segregation. Swedish policy analyst Kristian Tiger describes the system as “a possible instrument of social and economic integration. Before the reform, the principle of proximity determined which school a student had to attend. . . . Sweden has wealthy areas and low-income areas, prosperous places as well as places with many social problems, idyllic neighbourhoods and rough neighbourhoods. The old system only fortified segregation of that sort. The voucher system has made it possible for children to choose schools further away from their homes.”
"School Vouchers in Sweden" (The Frontier Centre for Public Policy):
(continuar a ler "Sweden [FONT=&quot]♥[/FONT] Friedman (2)")
The rapid growth of independent schools—before vouchers, they held fewer than one percent of Swedish students; now more than ten percent of secondary and over six percent of elementary students attend them—did confirm one negative prediction. They have increased the level of educational segregation. Religious and ethnic minorities are placing their children in schools that cater to their special needs, as are parents who seek a specialized pedagogical emphasis, like music.

But in another important sense, vouchers have reduced segregation. Swedish policy analyst Kristian Tiger describes the system as “a possible instrument of social and economic integration. Before the reform, the principle of proximity determined which school a student had to attend. . . . Sweden has wealthy areas and low-income areas, prosperous places as well as places with many social problems, idyllic neighbourhoods and rough neighbourhoods. The old system only fortified segregation of that sort. The voucher system has made it possible for children to choose schools further away from their homes.”

[RGacky3]

I'm asking you. Most economists offer as a solution more power to the State, which will just make it easier for corporations to gain more power as well.

Corporations already have the power, the question was how the economic collapse happened, most economists agree it was the deregulatoin of the 80s and 90s which allowed banks to use peoples money to make wild bets, and essencially bet on things collapsing, betting more money than the things they were betting on were even worth, thats one reason. Essnecially giving these already insanely powerful institutions more power by loosening their chains.

Heres the difference between the State and a corporation, a Corporation responds to one thing, quarterly profits, only, thats it, finito, the state responds to pressure, from the corporations and the people, I would MUCH rather have an institution that also responds to the people have more power than on that only responds to quarterly profits.

You will be please to know that Sweden has been increasing its "economic freedom" in recent years, which is partly a reason for its great position on that Index.

Fine, but thats recent years, the decades of strong social democracy is what put sweeden up there in the first place, thats just one example, but there is one country the Northern Europe where the free market reigned supreme for many many years, lets see .... oh yeah, Iceland.

[Havet]

Corporations already have the power, the question was how the economic collapse happened, most economists agree it was the deregulatoin of the 80s and 90s which allowed banks to use peoples money to make wild bets, and essencially bet on things collapsing, betting more money than the things they were betting on were even worth, thats one reason. Essnecially giving these already insanely powerful institutions more power by loosening their chains.

And you know why these bankers completely forgot common practices of lending and risked it all for profit? Because they knew they would be bailed out if things got dirty.

Fine, but thats recent years, the decades of strong social democracy is what put sweeden up there in the first place, thats just one example, but there is one country the Northern Europe where the free market reigned supreme for many many years, lets see .... oh yeah, Iceland.

Coming from a small domestic market, Iceland's banks have financed their expansion with loans on the interbank lending market and, more recently, by deposits from outside Iceland (which are also a form of external debt). Households also took on a large amount of debt, equivalent to 213% of disposable income, which led to inflation.[118] This inflation was exacerbated by the practice of the Central Bank of Iceland issuing liquidity loans to banks on the basis of newly-issued, uncovered bonds[119] — effectively, printing money on demand.

In response to the rise in prices — 14% in the twelve months to September 2008,[9] compared with a target of 2.5% — the Central Bank of Iceland has held interest rates high (15.5%).[10] Such high interest rates, compared with 5.5% in the United Kingdom or 4% in the eurozone for example, have encouraged overseas investors to hold deposits in Icelandic krónur, leading to monetary inflation: the Icelandic money supply (M3) grew 56.5% in the twelve months to September 2008, compared with 5.0% GDP growth.[120] The situation was effectively an economic bubble, with investors overestimating the true value of the króna.

[RGacky3]

And you know why these bankers completely forgot common practices of lending and risked it all for profit? Because they knew they would be bailed out if things got dirty.

Yeah I understand, but the solution is not to give them more power, allow them to get even larger, so the too big to fail problem gets worse, the fact is they have the power, your solution of less regulation is'nt going to change that at all. The solution is to put public pressure and more democratic power.

Coming from a small domestic market, Iceland's banks have financed their expansion with loans on the interbank lending market and, more recently, by deposits from outside Iceland (which are also a form of external debt). Households also took on a large amount of debt, equivalent to 213% of disposable income, which led to inflation.[118] This inflation was exacerbated by the practice of the Central Bank of Iceland issuing liquidity loans to banks on the basis of newly-issued, uncovered bonds[119] — effectively, printing money on demand.

In response to the rise in prices — 14% in the twelve months to September 2008,[9] compared with a target of 2.5% — the Central Bank of Iceland has held interest rates high (15.5%).[10] Such high interest rates, compared with 5.5% in the United Kingdom or 4% in the eurozone for example, have encouraged overseas investors to hold deposits in Icelandic krónur, leading to monetary inflation: the Icelandic money supply (M3) grew 56.5% in the twelve months to September 2008, compared with 5.0% GDP growth.[120] The situation was effectively an economic bubble, with investors overestimating the true value of the króna.

Ok, how is this not the free market acting out? The Central bank of Iceland is not the Icelandic government.

[Zanthorus]

I don't expect to have that poor of a "class" unless they choose to become so, which would be indeed irrational.

You don't choose how wealthy you are in wage slavery. It all depends on the balance of power between the employed and employing classes.

I mean, is it any wonder that we only started having high degrees of constant growth in inflation when government cut all the links of money to reality (aka gold, in the case of america)?

(Historical innaccuracy: it was Reagan, not Nixon, who "slammed" the gold window)

I'll find some articles later but I'm pretty sure that there isn't any consensus so far on wether or not inflation is actually a bad thing.

There's nothing voluntary about forcing people to recognize special privilege to certain businesses.

Just because there wouldn't be any privileges granted to them doesn't mean that corporations couldn't still exist. If you didn't allow people to form corporations then it wouldn't be a voluntary society. Unless you want to ban all groups of people in which case you'd have to ban trade unions...

What? You don't even make sense. Just because they are heavily subsidized doesn't mean they will disappear if the subsidies disappear. It just means that there will be more competitive signals to tell the owners of such mass transportation systems (whether a collective or an individual) how efficient their actions are.

Why would we want transport systems to be "efficient"? We need them to get us to places we want to go, economic efficiency has little to do with it.

[Havet]

Yeah I understand, but the solution is not to give them more power, allow them to get even larger, so the too big to fail problem gets worse, the fact is they have the power, your solution of less regulation is'nt going to change that at all. The solution is to put public pressure and more democratic power.

The only reason they have more power is because of the State which already cartelizes and centralized resources for the highest bidder.

Ok, how is this not the free market acting out? The Central bank of Iceland is not the Icelandic government.

Central banks are commonly (exception, america) branches of the State. They control the supply of paper money.

[Havet]

You don't choose how wealthy you are in wage slavery. It all depends on the balance of power between the employed and employing classes.

It would be impossible to be a wage serf in an environment with equality of opportunity.

Just because there wouldn't be any privileges granted to them doesn't mean that corporations couldn't still exist. If you didn't allow people to form corporations then it wouldn't be a voluntary society. Unless you want to ban all groups of people in which case you'd have to ban trade unions...

The very definition of corporation requires special law which is usually granted by the State. I have no problems with people agreeing by majoritarian consensus that special corporate law shouldnt exist.

Why would we want transport systems to be "efficient"? We need them to get us to places we want to go, economic efficiency has little to do with it.

Oh jeese, why do we want our bodies to be efficient? Because if the costs are higher than the gains WE DIE. It is not possible to fund a transport system that is worth less than what it costs to keep it running, which is why efficiency is praised.

[Zanthorus]

It would be impossible to be a wage serf in an environment with equality of opportunity.

Only if there was no such thing as involuntary unemployment. Of course there is involuntary unemployment because as a rule the accumulation of capital that occurs under capitalism will mean that agrregated demand is greater than aggregate supply.

Oh jeese, why do we want our bodies to be efficient? Because if the costs are higher than the gains WE DIE. It is not possible to fund a transport system that is worth less than what it costs to keep it running, which is why efficiency is praised.

But efficiency in the market place only takes into consideration economic things. There could be gains to keeping a system in place that exceed the arbitrary market costs.

[Left-Reasoning]

Of course there is involuntary unemployment because as a rule the accumulation of capital that occurs under capitalism will mean that agrregated demand is greater than aggregate supply.

How are we measuring aggregate demand and supply and then drawing a conclusion that one is somehow larger than the other?

[Havet]

Only if there was no such thing as involuntary unemployment. Of course there is involuntary unemployment because as a rule the accumulation of capital that occurs under capitalism will mean that agrregated demand is greater than aggregate supply.

We were not talking about capitalis, why bring it up? There is no reason to believe that in a free-market anti-capitalist society with equality of opportunity the non-coercive accumulation of capital will be enough to create conditions of involuntary poverty.

But efficiency in the market place only takes into consideration economic things. There could be gains to keeping a system in place that exceed the arbitrary market costs.

Well some people believe everything can be described in economic terms. Also, real free-market costs are not arbitrary, they are directly dependent on the scarcity, labor, costs and innovation of acquiring and trading resources.

Anyway, do you have some examples of systems that have gains in exceeding its costs of maintenance? Are you going to quote the mines Thatcher wanted closed as an example?

[Ovi]

It would be impossible to be a wage serf in an environment with equality of opportunity.

By your definition of equal opportunity, capitalism does offer equal opportunity as long as there is no state to "grant special privileges to corporations". So how exactly would you define it?

[RGacky3]

The only reason they have more power is because of the State which already cartelizes and centralized resources for the highest bidder.

What resources? The oil? The banking system? What resources?

Central banks are commonly (exception, america) branches of the State. They control the supply of paper money.

The Central bank of iceland is independant of the state, meaning they make their deiscions without public control, although yeah, they control the supply of the paper money.

That also being said, you just copy and pasted the wikipedia article, and did so out of context.

Heres what the wikipedia article said RIGHT BEFORE your post

"
A number of writers have linked Iceland's woes to the nation's adoption of neo-liberal economic policies starting in the 1990s.[109][110][111][112]
In 2001, banks were deregulated in Iceland.[113] This set the stage for banks to upload debts when foreign companies were accumulated.[113] The crisis unfolded when banks became unable to refinance their debts. It is estimated that the three major banks hold foreign debt in excess of €50 billion,[4] or about €160,000 per Icelandic resident, compared with Iceland's gross domestic product of €8.5 billion.[5][114] As early as March 2008, the cost of private deposit insurance for deposits in Landsbanki and Kaupthing was already far higher (6–8½% of the sum deposited) than for other European banks.[115] The króna, which was ranked by The Economist in early 2007 as the most overvalued currency in the world (based on the Big Mac Index),[116] has further suffered from the effects of carry trading.[117]"

If your gonna copy and paste from wikipedia, put it in context. You can blaim the fed all you want, BUT, according to most economists, and respectic analysis, deregulation and neo-liberalism set the stage for hte crash and caused it. Keep in mind, these are not socialist economists :P

There is no reason to believe that in a free-market anti-capitalist society with equality of opportunity the non-coercive accumulation of capital will be enough to create conditions of involuntary poverty.

As I've said, the accumulation of property destroyes equality of opportunity, its impossible to have such with property laws.

It would be impossible to be a wage serf in an environment with equality of opportunity.

Its impossible to have equality of opportunity with property laws, its impossible to have a market without property laws.

Again, if I have more money than the next guy, I have more opportunity, I have more market power, there goes equality of opportunity.

[Zanthorus]

How are we measuring aggregate demand and supply and then drawing a conclusion that one is somehow larger than the other?

If this is referring to Say's infamous "Law" that supply and demand are the same thing that is debunked here: http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/w...kSayNoMore.pdf

We were not talking about capitalism, why bring it up? There is no reason to believe that in a free-market anti-capitalist society with equality of opportunity the non-coercive accumulation of capital will be enough to create conditions of involuntary poverty.

Capitalism, Free-market "anti-capitalism" who cares? It's basically the same system only in one the market somehow magically brings us to socialism while in the other it leaves us under heirarchical rule. Accumulation of resources is accumulation of resources under both systems. Under both systems wealth is being accrued for the sake of wealth. Under both systems this has potential to cause damage.