Cricket Betting Site Betway
Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 298
Like Tree210Likes

Thread: In A Libertarian state how would the poor survive?

  1. #61
    U19 Vice-Captain Munificent_Fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    Okay but you said it was more capitalist than most. You then highlighted their ridiculous levels of government debt.
    The two are not in direct opposition. They're often in apposition.

    Quote Originally Posted by GIMH View Post
    America long since stopped being a capitalist dream.
    It never really was. There are no capitalist economies in the true sense. They're state-capitalist.

  2. #62
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14,825
    - The poor don't do very well, full stop. This can be a point on either side, really. If poor people doing poorly is a flaw of libertarian principles it's also a flaw of plenty of other systems around the world.
    - A libertarian state doesn't have to be perfect to be better than every other alternative. Not saying that it is, just saying that its flaws may not necessarily outweigh its attributes.
    - A raised living standard because of human progression and development is obviously not solely attributable to capitalism - it's attributable to those inventions and ingenuity and other factors that caused the human progression and development. Also, Ikki's use of the 'Murica example is ahistorical and stupid
    - A libertarian state may or may not be a more conducive environment to inventions, ingenuity and development than another state. I don't know. It's almost certainly better than a communist state - but then almost anything is. Although I agree with most (not all) libertarian principles and in a perfect world I think such a state would work well, I'm yet to be convinced by any hard evidence that a libertarian system would work in the current world any better than the standard liberal-socialism we have in most states in the developed world.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    "You don't look like me in this world without being firm on what you want to do."

    - Hashim Amla.
    Quote Originally Posted by DriveClub View Post
    He bowls with a lot of heart, his heart makes the ball bounce more

  3. #63
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Munificent_Fool View Post
    Clearly you have no perspective. The same logic can be used to justify any system that has rising standards of living be it across decades or centuries. There were rising standards of living in Nazi Germany. Does that justify fascism? The same can be said for some communist countries, and some slave societies. It is not a valid argument.
    That's where knowing how economics worse helps you avoid these pitfalls - which you unfortunately don't realise you're stepping into.

    Socialism and Communism in the long run do not provide rising standards of living - very short term, maybe. Capitalism does the opposite. That's where I am talking about long ranges of time and not just 5-10 year spans. Even left-leaning economists like Krugman (I say that to exclude socialists/communists) will not argue against capitalism being great in the long-run.

    So assuming that economic freedom and capitalism are interchangeable synonyms, which they're not, you're arguing that my claim of America being more capitalist than most other developed countries is false because two other countries out of dozens, are supposedly more capitalist than the US? lol................what?

    Poverty is routinely measured in relative and absolute terms. And the US fares worse on both than a host of European and other developed countries. I can't help that it contradicts your free market zealotry.
    I know EFI is not synonymous, my point is exactly that. You are defining USA as more capitalistic based on which definition? It's previous reputation? If you invest in business in Denmark you are more economically free than USA - that is a significant aspect of capitalism, if not its foundation. Using your argument is simplistic because it doesn't actually use reality as a gauge but some figment of your imagination.

    I made a simple, rather obvious claim: the world is becoming more prosperous because of capitalism - which is the process by which they can accumulate the most capital. Countries have varied levels of economic freedom and the more they have the better they can do in engaging in capitalism. Even China employs a capitalistic form in order to spur enterprise - but they would be even better if the government did not own everything.


    They also subsidise their own multinationals who rape underdeveloped countries. But that's apparently fine under the rubric of free trade, yeah?...

    lol and yeah America would never fund their programs through debt would they? They only have the highest absolute debt in the world, the 9th or 10th highest relative to GDP, and the fifth highest on a per capita basis.

    God you talk some utter **** on here.
    If they subsidise their own multi-nationals then by the very definition of free market they go against my argument of capitalism ruling because it is no longer a purely capitalistic enterprise. How do you make such a simple mistake and yet have the cheek to lecture others? Go read a book and learn some simple definitions. Libertarians are against subsidisation

    You're ironically using the very examples libertarians and free market proponents use to illustrate USA moving away from capitalism and why I questioned you initially on how you're defining things. It's clear you don't know how to do this accurately.
    Last edited by Ikki; 15-07-2018 at 05:01 AM.

  4. #64
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    - The poor don't do very well, full stop. This can be a point on either side, really. If poor people doing poorly is a flaw of libertarian principles it's also a flaw of plenty of other systems around the world.
    - A libertarian state doesn't have to be perfect to be better than every other alternative. Not saying that it is, just saying that its flaws may not necessarily outweigh its attributes.
    - A raised living standard because of human progression and development is obviously not solely attributable to capitalism - it's attributable to those inventions and ingenuity and other factors that caused the human progression and development. Also, Ikki's use of the 'Murica example is ahistorical and stupid
    - A libertarian state may or may not be a more conducive environment to inventions, ingenuity and development than another state. I don't know. It's almost certainly better than a communist state - but then almost anything is. Although I agree with most (not all) libertarian principles and in a perfect world I think such a state would work well, I'm yet to be convinced by any hard evidence that a libertarian system would work in the current world any better than the standard liberal-socialism we have in most states in the developed world.
    - I'd refine this: the poor don't do very well, full stop, because relative to other people there will be unequal efforts, ability, even luck, and hence distribution. But a poor person would rather be in a capitalistic (or more capitalistic if that is the trade-off) country which is why they flock to countries like Australia, Denmark and the USA and not China, Venezuela and N. Korea.

    - No argument there.

    - Capitalism is the mechanism which allows more invention and for the ingenuity of people to materialise uncontrolled or hindered. America is not an ahistorical example, and it is the best example to use because of its long history, size and influence. It would be like talking about digital communication and leaving out the Internet.

    - Can't disagree with the last point.
    Last edited by Ikki; 15-07-2018 at 04:18 AM.
    ★★★★★


  5. #65
    U19 Vice-Captain Munificent_Fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    That's where knowing how economics worse helps you avoid these pitfalls - which you unfortunately don't realise you're stepping into.

    Socialism and Communism in the long run do not provide rising standards of living - very short term, maybe. Capitalism does the opposite. That's where I am talking about long ranges of time and not just 5-10 year spans. Even left-leaning economists like Krugman (I say that to exclude socialists/communists) will not argue against capitalism being great in the long-run.
    You claimed rising standards of living justifies and reflects well on capitalism. There were rising standards of living in slave societies which went on for centuries and centuries. Address the point or retract your argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    I know EFI is not synonymous, my point is exactly that. You are defining USA as more capitalistic based on which definition? It's previous reputation? If you invest in business in Denmark you are more economically free than USA - that is a significant aspect of capitalism, if not its foundation. Using your argument is simplistic because it doesn't actually use reality as a gauge but some figment of your imagination.
    I said the US is more capitalist than most developed countries. I did not say all. Why is this so hard to understand? Are you disputing the point?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    I made a simple, rather obvious claim: the world is becoming more prosperous because of capitalism - which is the process by which they can accumulate the most capital. Countries have varied levels of economic freedom and the more they have the better they can do in engaging in capitalism. Even China employs a capitalistic form in order to spur enterprise - but they would be even better if the government did not own everything.
    So you'd admit the world is also becoming more prosperous because of socialism then, yes? Same logic applies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    If they subsidise their own multi-nationals then by the very definition of free market they go against my argument of capitalism ruling because it is no longer a purely capitalistic enterprise.
    There's no such thing as a "purely capitalistic enterprise" on that scale. State subsidy of big business is a natural outgrowth of a system designed to benefit the wealthy. You have no idea what you're talking about.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    How do you make such a simple mistake and yet have the cheek to lecture others? Go read a book and learn some simple definitions. Libertarians are against subsidisation
    I don't give a **** if you're against state subsidy. I don't give a **** if capitalism is against it, in theory. It is a logical and perfectly predictable consequence of a system which increases monopolisation and concentration of wealth and power. Even Milton Friedman, (since we're invoking "economists" in arguments from authority) recognised this as a legitimate critique of capitalism.

    Recall the phrase "socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the rest." Yes, there are idiots who read that reflection at a time such as the GFC and thoght the "socialism" part was the root of the problem.

    What does libertarianism have to do with this?

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    You're ironically using the very examples libertarians and free market proponents use to illustrate USA moving away from capitalism and why I questioned you initially on how you're defining things. It's clear you don't know how to do this accurately.
    No. I'm highlighting the disconnect between your ideology and the actual, real world consequences of said ideology. You know, sort of how one does when dealing with a Communist who wants to ignore the Soviet Union under Stalin?

    You're so similar to religious zealots. When something goes wrong with your system, it's never the grand theory at fault. It's always that we haven't tried it hard enough.
    Last edited by Munificent_Fool; 16-07-2018 at 07:51 AM.

  6. #66
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Munificent_Fool View Post
    You claimed rising standards of living justifies and reflects well on capitalism. There were rising standards of living in slave societies which went on for centuries and centuries. Address the point or retract your argument.
    The USA had a civil war, who had more money and who won?

    I'm sure under dictatorships things progressed too, until the states in question could no longer sustain themselves. In the long run, slave states lost. And you lose, again.

    I said the US is more capitalist than most developed countries. I did not say all. Why is this so hard to understand? Are you disputing the point?
    It depends which developed countries you are talking about and the economic freedoms they have. That's the point. I've asked you to define this. As has been revealed, you don't even know the definition of free market capitalism. You should be asking questions, not debating, you don't know the requisite minimum to have a to-and-fro on this.

    So you'd admit the world is also becoming more prosperous because of socialism then, yes? Same logic applies.
    China uses communes that mimic capitalism but lack ownership. Seeing as you don't know why people promote capitalism I'll try to sum it up for you: the more people can freely engage in enterprise without coercion, the better the economy in the long run. It is not a binary consideration, it is more gradient-like. Conversely, the more state interference you get, the worse the economy in the long run. China's rise has coincided with it being less socialist and more capitalist, ironically, rebutting your argument, as even crony capitalism is better than socialism.

    Note, even Keynes (interventionist) didn't dispute his theory not working in the long run. Keynes' famous reply was: in the long run we are all dead. That should illustrate to you how much thought is behind this economic theory and why it is not free market capitalism. And even Keynesianism is far superior to socialism.

    There's no such thing as a "purely capitalistic enterprise" on that scale. State subsidy of big business is a natural outgrowth of a system designed to benefit the wealthy. You have no idea what you're talking about.
    You are embarrassing yourself; you're in a libertarian thread and you don't even know the definition of free market capitalism. You are using so-called market economy conceptions of trade - based on Keynesian economics - to define free market capitalism. Even Krugman knows the difference. Libertarians do not want any intervention in the economy, that includes subsidisations and trade restrictions on overseas competitions. The reason for this is: once you let the government in, you are corrupting the market. Instead of those companies having to compete honestly to provide the best good or service at the cheapest cost, you allow them to use government favours at the expense of others.

    This is the crucial difference between those who want government to be big and those who want it small. The former think they can do good as long as they keep the powers of government to plan an economy to their desired design, the latter realise that people in government are corrupt - or become corrupt - and want the size of government to be small and not interfere with people who engage freely and honestly. This aside from the fact that an economy composes of too many individuals and competing interests to be centrally planned.

    That is why I exemplified USA before it introduced an income tax, a reserve bank and started to expand the scope of government. I'll recap since you may actually understand the difference now that it has been spelled out to you: by 1900, USA was the richest country in the world, if not all time, founded only 124 years earlier. The government only spent a tiny fraction of what the economy created (GDP) - from around 7% in 1902 to around 40% today. That's why pretending USA is still some great capitalistic example right now is nonsense.

    I don't give a **** if you're against state subsidy. I don't give a **** if capitalism is against it, in theory. It is a logical and perfectly predictable consequence of a system which increases monopolisation and concentration of wealth and power. Even Milton Friedman, (since we're invoking "economists" in arguments from authority) recognised this as a legitimate critique of capitalism.
    You'll have to cite this, as Milton was a monetarist, a libertarian and spent his entire career talking about the evils of government and not the market. He won his Nobel prize showing that the federal reserve caused the Great depression.

    In fact, there is a Friedman lecture of him explaining why monopolies won't happen in a free market on Youtube. Here he is saying, literally, the exact opposite of your claim - so, nah.



    Recall the phrase "socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the rest." Yes, there are idiots who read that reflection at a time such as the GFC and thoght the "socialism" part was the root of the problem.
    You are referring to corporatism or crony capitalism and misapplying it to free market capitalism. It's impossible to have this discussion if you don't know simple definitions.


    What does libertarianism have to do with this?
    This is a libertarian thread, and libertarians are free market capitalists, what doesn't it have to do with them?

    No. I'm highlighting the disconnect between your ideology and the actual, real world consequences of said ideology. You know, sort of how one does when dealing with a Communist who wants to ignore the Soviet Union under Stalin?

    You're so similar to religious zealots. When something goes wrong with your system, it's never the grand theory at fault. It's always that we haven't tried it hard enough.
    All you are highlighting is how people who don't know simple definitions, history, economics, can be duped into giving away their rights, increasing government, and still call it capitalism. You are the very definition of zealotry because definitions don't mean anything to you - you might as well say socialism is a form of free market capitalism. You're like the same geniuses who say "we already have socialism, why don't we have more?" when they try to argue that welfare programs mean a country is socialist. You want to use a "No true scotsman fallacy" defence when in reality you just don't know what you're really talking about.

    Look, there was a time when even though I'd call myself a libertarian, I hadn't thought out everything well because I really didn't understand the viewpoint as well as I do now, at the time. I'm sure I made mistakes as well. You're probably even more confused about it all and it is hard to blame you for that. There is no shame in incorrectly misapplying or misinterpreting information, you are not unique in this regard. But at least have the humility to know when you need to learn more because if this is how you plan on 'beating' me you are kidding yourself. Who knows, maybe you will change your opinions once you know more.
    Last edited by Ikki; 16-07-2018 at 10:13 AM.
    Ausage likes this.

  7. #67
    U19 Vice-Captain Munificent_Fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    The USA had a civil war, who had more money and who won?

    I'm sure under dictatorships things progressed too, until the states in question could no longer sustain themselves. In the long run, slave states lost. And you lose, again.
    Slave states went on for millennia, you goose. That's a hell of a lot longer than the existence of capitalism or the US of A. Honestly.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    It depends which developed countries you are talking about and the economic freedoms they have. That's the point. I asked you to define this. As has been revealed, you don't even know the definition of free market capitalism. You should be asking questions, not debating, you don't know the requisite minimum to have a to-and-fro on this.
    The fact that there is state subsidy going to multinationals does not mean the US is not capitalist. Nor does me pointing out that fact mean that's what I think capitalism, in theory, propounds.

    It's like talking to a child.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Er, no, do we have to go down the same route as we did with Chile? China uses communes that mimic capitalism but lack ownership. Seeing as you don't know why people promote capitalism I'll try to sum it up for you: the more people can freely engage in enterprise without coercion, the better the economy in the long run. It is not a binary consideration. Conversely, the more state interference you get, the worse the economy in the long run. Now you can reread history and understand what actually happened in the world.
    The point was to illustrate that both socialism and capitalism are operative in the US and most if not all developed countries. You're not actually arguing the latter is causal in the claims you've made. You're just stating it over and over again referencing its continued existence and worldwide standards of living as justification. Follow your own logic to its conclusions, you wombat.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    You are embarrassing yourself; you're in a libertarian thread and you don't even know the definition of free market capitalism. You are using so-called market economy conceptions of trade - based on Keynesian economics - to define free market capitalism. Even Krugman knows the difference. Libertarians do not want any intervention in the economy, that includes subsidisations and trade restrictions on overseas competitions. The reason for this is: once you let the government in, you are corrupting the market. Instead of those companies having to compete honestly to provide the best good or service at the cheapest cost, you allow them to use government favours at the expense of others.

    This is the crucial difference between those who want government to be big and those who want it small. The former think they can do good as long as they keep the powers of government to plan an economy to their desired design, the latter realise that people in government are corrupt - or become corrupt - and want the size of government to be small and not interfere with people who engage freely and honestly.

    That is why I exemplified USA before it introduced an income tax, a reserve bank and started to expand the scope of government. I'll recap since you may actually understand the difference now that it has been spelled out to you: by 1900, USA was the richest country in the world, if not all time, founded only 124 years earlier. The government only spent a tiny fraction of what the economy created (GDP) - from around 7% in 1902 to around 40% today. That's why pretending USA is still some great capitalistic example is now is nonsense.
    Why are you continuing to labour under the delusion that I give a **** about your idealised notion of what a market economy should be? I'm talking about what actually happens in reality under capitalist measures.

    It's just ****ing hilarious that an advocate of an economy completely devoid of any state intervention is criticising other systems for their lack of sustainability.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    You'll have to cite this, as Milton was a monetarist, a libertarian and spent his entire career talking about the evils of government and not the market. He won his Nobel prize showing that the federal reserve caused the Great depression.

    So, nah, you're wrong.
    The guy who's been invoking unsolicited authority all evening wants citations. Yeah I'll just go and dig it up for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    You are referring to corporatism or crony capitalism and mislabelling it capitalism. It's impossible to have this discussion if you don't know simple definitions.
    Actually it's impossible to have this discussion if you're going to whitewash every bad thing capitalism necessarily leads to. What world do you live in where wealthy and powerful people don't try to expand their wealth and power relative to and over others? Of course, of course, corporatism isn't one of many natural progressions of capitalism. It's a corruption of it...lol

    No, no, that wasn't Communism. You are referring to corrupt communism. You're mislabelling it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    This is a libertarian thread, and libertarians are free market capitalists, what doesn't it have to do with them?
    Bullshit. Absolute, complete, ahistorical, fundamentalist, uneducated, unadulterated bullshit. Talk about ignorance of definitions. You're talking with a libertarian socialist right now and as you can see, I'm anything but a capitalist. Not all of us anti-statists are votaries of Ayn Rand.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    All you are highlighting is how people who don't know simple definitions, history, economics, can be duped into giving away their rights, increasing government, and still call it capitalism. You are the very definition of zealotry because definitions don't mean anything to you - you might as well say socialism is a form of free market capitalism. You're like the same geniuses who say "we already have socialism, why don't we have more?" when they try to argue that welfare programs are socialism.
    Except that I'm more anti-statist than you are. You don't know **** about history or economics. If you did you'd know no society has ever developed without extreme violations of the very market principles you esteem so enthusiastically.

  8. #68
    Global Moderator Spark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    A Blood Rainbow
    Posts
    54,289
    Now now I'm sure there was very consistent application of free market principles along the Trail of Tears.
    citoyens, vouliez-vous une révolution sans révolution?

  9. #69
    U19 Vice-Captain Munificent_Fool's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    506
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Friedman video
    I'm just going to ask you plainly before I reply with the quotations.

    Have you read Capitalism and Freedom?

  10. #70
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by Munificent_Fool View Post
    Slave states went on for millennia, you goose. That's a hell of a lot longer than the existence of capitalism or the US of A. Honestly.......
    Slave states were poor, constantly engaging in war and perishing consistently until they were basically all gone. If you are comparing this to capitalism, you are lost you goose.

    I argue that in a few hundreds years capitalism has led to the increase in the wealth we have at an unprecedented rate and trajectory and you are referring to the millennia where slave states did **** all...and you're comparing the two for a false equivalency

    Your pedantry doesn't even have a leg to stand on. You are insinuating as if I've said that nothing but capitalism can improve things. No, other forms of governance can do this - heck, even dictatorships - they just don't work in the long run.

    The fact that there is state subsidy going to multinationals does not mean the US is not capitalist. Nor does me pointing out that fact mean that's what I think capitalism, in theory, propounds.

    It's like talking to a child.
    It isn't free market capitalism. You can argue all you want about it being some form of capitalism but that's interventionism, there is a reason I brought up Keynes. You probably don't even know the history of why this distinction matters.

    At best, it is a country that largely engages in capitalism engaging in an anti-free market action. But that's not a function of capitalism no more than genocide is a function of government.

    The point was to illustrate that both socialism and capitalism are operative in the US and most if not all developed countries. You're not actually arguing the latter is causal in the claims you've made. You're just stating it over and over again referencing its continued existence and worldwide standards of living as justification. Follow your own logic to its conclusions, you wombat.
    Socialism doesn't exist in the USA. You are confused and don't know what you're talking about.

    Why are you continuing to labour under the delusion that I give a **** about your idealised notion of what a market economy should be? I'm talking about what actually happens in reality under capitalist measures.

    It's just ****ing hilarious that an advocate of an economy completely devoid of any state intervention is criticising other systems for their lack of sustainability.
    Well of course you don't care. If a country that is supposed to be a democracy is then ruled by a dictator it doesn't mean dictatorship is a consequence of democracy you numpty.

    The guy who's been invoking unsolicited authority all evening wants citations. Yeah I'll just go and dig it up for you.
    Any information you want I'll cite, if I haven't already or you can't find it.

    Actually it's impossible to have this discussion if you're going to whitewash every bad thing capitalism necessarily leads to. What world do you live in where wealthy and powerful people don't try to expand their wealth and power relative to and over others? Of course, of course, corporatism isn't one of many natural progressions of capitalism. It's a corruption of it...lol

    No, no, that wasn't Communism. You are referring to corrupt communism. You're mislabelling it.
    As I said before:

    "You want to use a "No true scotsman fallacy" defence when in reality you just don't know what you're really talking about."

    Free market capitalism does not include coercion by the state - the extent to which the government can be involved is to provide courts and police, that's it. You are bringing up instances of coercion - a subsidy. It shows how shallow your line of thought is that you can't even reason this out.

    How does a company get control of the government? Because people vote for it - either directly or through their representatives. In the market place, there is no function or way for this to occur, that is why free market capitalism has a clear definition. Once you give the government the power to interfere in the market in such a way, you are moving away from the definition of free market capitalism.

    Bullshit. Absolute, complete, ahistorical, fundamentalist, uneducated, unadulterated bullshit. Talk about ignorance of definitions. You're talking with a libertarian socialist right now and as you can see, I'm anything but a capitalist. Not all of us anti-statists are votaries of Ayn Rand.
    Libertarian socialist? my sides actually hurt. Who mentioned Rand?

    "I'm literally a libertarian socialist, you idiot"



    Except that I'm more anti-statist than you are. You don't know **** about history or economics. If you did you'd know no society has ever developed without extreme violations of the very market principles you esteem so enthusiastically.
    I'm not an anarchist, so being more anti-statist than me isn't saying anything. I could at least respect what you were saying if you were an Anarcho-capitalist (I agree in theory but practically I'm not sure we're in the right age for it) but not knowing simple definitions and the logical reasons of why those definitions matter is why you have pretzeled yourself into libertarian socialism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Munificent_Fool View Post
    I'm just going to ask you plainly before I reply with the quotations.

    Have you read Capitalism and Freedom?
    Many years ago. Get to citing what you are referring to so I can see if you have taken his objections out of context. I literally gave you him, in his own words, in a lecture, opposing your very claim.

    Aside from that, I am more an Austrian economist, rather than a Monetarist (mainly because of the federal reserve considerations many have). But that's besides the point for now.
    Last edited by Ikki; 17-07-2018 at 07:05 AM.

  11. #71
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    - I'd refine this: the poor don't do very well, full stop, because relative to other people there will be unequal efforts, ability, even luck, and hence distribution. But a poor person would rather be in a capitalistic (or more capitalistic if that is the trade-off) country which is why they flock to countries like Australia, Denmark and the USA and not China, Venezuela and N. Korea.
    Nah, I don't agree.
    - Workers flock to Denmark because they have the highest minimum wage in the world due to extremely powerful trade unions with good coverage. I would call this "free" or "liberal" but not capitalist. There are certain laws required to ensure union coverage that, for example, the US doesn't have which is what has resulted in the far lower levels of worker welfare standards.
    - People flock to Australia and the USA because of excellent natural resources. Australia also has relatively strong unions resulting in good wages, usually higher than the US in most industries.
    - Denmark also has a lot of natural resource; it is extremely arable which gave it a strong footing for 99% of history - the contribution of its agriculture to GDP has lowered but it had that historical base to stand on which gave it a highly educated and wealthy society - enabling for a modern economy with smart manufacturing (read: good engineering that poorer economies simply don't have).

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    - Capitalism is the mechanism which allows more invention and for the ingenuity of people to materialise uncontrolled or hindered. America is not an ahistorical example, and it is the best example to use because of its long history, size and influence. It would be like talking about digital communication and leaving out the Internet.
    I don't agree.

    I would say that free trade and liberal economies in general have a tendency towards prosperity but a) I don't think that's been the case for the US (I don't think it's ever been particularly free, and I think most of its wealth is down to resource, history and geography) and b) to ensure free trade in many cases you have to adopt anti-capitalist measures.

    For example, I think as modern economies grow, labour is becoming cheaper and cheaper both because of global population growth and automation, and this means that wages and hence true individual freedom are greatly compromised even though the total amount of work and production is ever increasing. Therefore I think to retain true freedom some socialist measures are necessary - for example I agree with Milton Friedman's advocacy for a universal living allowance (that he called a negative tax).
    Last edited by hendrix; 17-07-2018 at 02:49 AM.
    Flem274* likes this.

  12. #72
    Hall of Fame Member Ikki's Avatar
    Cricket Champion!
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Don't leave me Murph!
    Posts
    15,463
    Quote Originally Posted by hendrix View Post
    Nah, I don't agree.
    - Workers flock to Denmark because they have the highest minimum wage in the world due to extremely powerful trade unions with good coverage. I would call this "free" or "liberal" but not capitalist. There are certain laws required to ensure union coverage that, for example, the US doesn't have which is what has resulted in the far lower levels of worker welfare standards.
    - People flock to Australia and the USA because of excellent natural resources. Australia also has relatively strong unions resulting in good wages, usually higher than the US in most industries.
    - Denmark also has a lot of natural resource; it is extremely arable which gave it a strong footing for 99% of history - the contribution of its agriculture to GDP has lowered but it had that historical base to stand on which gave it a highly educated and wealthy society - enabling for a modern economy with smart manufacturing (read: good engineering that poorer economies simply don't have).
    Unless capitalism or economic freedom is there to generate wealth, none of this matters. Venezuela was rich in natural resources, no one is going there. Cuba provided free health care, no one is going there.

    I take your point that people have different motivations for going but they are largely dependent on the economic environment that enables every other thing they want to do.



    I don't agree.

    I would say that free trade and liberal economies in general have a tendency towards prosperity but a) I don't think that's been the case for the US (I don't think it's ever been particularly free, and I think most of its wealth is down to resource, history and geography) and b) to ensure free trade in many cases you have to adopt anti-capitalist measures.

    Even now the US is relatively free economically, it's not as free as it used to be however. It's definitely the case that the US has tended towards prosperity, the opposite argument to this is actually absurd.

    And the idea that to have free trade you have to restrict it is patently false. Free market capitalism hinges on free trade - they're almost synonymous. By enacting free trade, you are encouraging more economic freedom.

    For example, I think as modern economies grow, labour is becoming cheaper and cheaper both because of global population growth and automation, and this means that wages and hence true individual freedom are greatly compromised even though the total amount of work and production is ever increasing. Therefore I think to retain true freedom some socialist measures are necessary - for example I agree with Milton Friedman's advocacy for a universal living allowance (that he called a negative tax).
    Friedman advocated that in the absence of welfare programs - meaning, let's remove all this bloat and just give people an income where they can decide what to do with the money. He wouldn't even advocate this if he could just have nothing, it is his compromise so to speak.

    Things becoming cheaper, such as labour, is not a compromise of individual freedom. It has nothing directly to do with it. Labour, unregulated, will fall in price as more people are able to enter the labour market. They do so because they are willing not because people are forcing them. This is the kind of misconception people have about child labour as if children in poor countries were forced to get jobs as opposed to needing the extra income for their poor families. Conversely, when the price of certain labour drops too low for certain individuals, they will engage another job. That's freedom.
    Last edited by Ikki; 17-07-2018 at 03:30 AM.

  13. #73
    123/5 Flem274*'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    lockie ferguson should get a side gig with brazzers
    Posts
    40,219
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Things becoming cheaper, such as labour, is not a compromise of individual freedom. It has nothing directly to do with it. Labour, unregulated, will fall in price as more people are able to enter the labour market. They do so because they are willing not because people are forcing them. This is the kind of misconception people have about child labour as if children in poor countries were forced to get jobs as opposed to needing the extra income for their poor families. Conversely, when the price of certain labour drops too low for certain individuals, they will engage another job. That's freedom.
    this paragraph is truly amazing
    Proudly supporting Central Districts
    RIP Craig Walsh

  14. #74
    International Coach hendrix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    14,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Friedman advocated that in the absence of welfare programs - meaning, let's remove all this bloat and just give people an income where they can decide what to do with the money. He wouldn't even advocate this if he could just have nothing, it is his compromise so to speak.
    No, that's not true. He advocated for it partially to remove bureaucratic obstruction and to increase equality, but also he advocated for it as a means to ensuring people had the means and freedom to find work.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikki View Post
    Things becoming cheaper, such as labour, is not a compromise of individual freedom. It has nothing directly to do with it. Labour, unregulated, will fall in price as more people are able to enter the labour market. They do so because they are willing not because people are forcing them. This is the kind of misconception people have about child labour as if children in poor countries were forced to get jobs as opposed to needing the extra income for their poor families. Conversely, when the price of certain labour drops too low for certain individuals, they will engage another job. That's freedom.
    The concept of "financial freedom" is not something that's made up: someone living paycheque to paycheque cannot take time off work to upskill themselves to the point where they can get a better paying and overall more productive job. We're no longer hauling hauling giant stones of granite up ramps to build pyramids. Instead we're engineering machines to stack the stones on top of one another. The production is increased. The labour is reduced. Therefore, the wages for the labour are also reduced. If a person is financially free they are able to upskill themselves to the point where they are the engineer that designs that machine, rather than the guy on lower and lower wages barely able to feed his family because the work is being reduced even though the production is ever increasing.

    Denmark's economy is far more efficient than India's because of its highly educated, financially free workforce.

  15. #75
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    The Castle
    Posts
    66,642
    What if people band together to form a trade union to sell their labour at a certain rate?

Page 5 of 20 FirstFirst ... 3456715 ... LastLast


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 20
    Last Post: 02-08-2016, 09:47 AM
  2. Will test cricket survive into the 2030s?
    By Cric123 in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 60
    Last Post: 11-04-2015, 11:49 AM
  3. Which three clubs will survive the drop?
    By Nate in forum General Sports Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 28-04-2012, 01:10 PM
  4. VMMM, how are batsmen going to survive
    By whitedazzler in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 15-08-2008, 09:01 PM
  5. Can Australia survive without Warne and McGrath???
    By vandemataram in forum Cricket Chat
    Replies: 67
    Last Post: 15-01-2003, 05:27 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •