Forum
»
Economics Thread; Theory, Facts, and Fallacies
11-24-2023, 10:20 PM
-
#61
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
I am arguing that your definition is functionally useless. By your definition, every government that has ever collected a tax to provide any type of public function is socialist.Yeah, because the socialists and communists changed the definitions in order to push their agendas. Have you not been paying attention? Go back and read the early works on socialism and you suddenly realize what they have done.
Socialism is control of the means of production.
Communism is generally ownership over the means of production, although, communism is a form of socialism.
Fascism is a type of socialism, but with specific policies.
When you go back and read the historical documents, policies, politics, it becomes clear that it’s all socialism, it’s just different means to the same end; State control and ownership. You need to go way back to the beginning though. We are talking about the Romans idea of the republic (Famliies, tribes…), Christ (Individuals), and then the modern forms of government to fully understand why these are accurate statements. What we have today is propaganda, but people have been so indocintrated, that when they hear what socialism and capitalism really are, it sounds foreign.
Socialism is control of the means of production.
Communism is generally ownership over the means of production, although, communism is a form of socialism.
Fascism is a type of socialism, but with specific policies.
When you go back and read the historical documents, policies, politics, it becomes clear that it’s all socialism, it’s just different means to the same end; State control and ownership. You need to go way back to the beginning though. We are talking about the Romans idea of the republic (Famliies, tribes…), Christ (Individuals), and then the modern forms of government to fully understand why these are accurate statements. What we have today is propaganda, but people have been so indocintrated, that when they hear what socialism and capitalism really are, it sounds foreign.
11-24-2023, 10:28 PM
-
#62
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
If you care to learn at all, watch that video. A lightbulb will go off if you keep an open mind.I am arguing that your definition is functionally useless. By your definition, every government that has ever collected a tax to provide any type of public function is socialist.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-24-2023, 10:30 PM
-
#63
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
Care to address the argument I made without backhandedly insulting me? I thought this was a discussion thread. By your definition, every government that has ever collected a tax to provide a public service is socialist.If you care to learn at all, watch that video. A lightbulb will go off if you keep an open mind.
This is what you said:
"Socialism is anything pertaining to the public sector. The public sector includes collectives and the State. For example, Any business that contains a collective of owners is socialist. Any money going to a business, individual, or group, from the State, is socialism. Unions are a collective of laborers, therefore it is socialism. Key Words; Public, Group, collective, and State."
So every state in human history was socialist. Good job.
11-24-2023, 10:43 PM
-
#64
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
if the tax money goes in to the hands of an individual, group, or company from the central government, yes, it’s socialism. It is public money, because it was collected from the public, then given out to others. Unless it’s strictly to keep the government running, which it isn’t, it’s socialist.Care to address the argument I made without backhandedly insulting me? I thought this was a discussion thread. By your definition, every government that has ever collected a tax to provide a public service is socialist.
In the 1980s, in an interview with Friedman, he stated there was an assessment done of the central government that concluded 47% of the central government’s spending was socialist. So if we put a line in the sand as to whether we are capitalist or socialist by using 50% as the line, then yes, it’s safe to say that every government in the world is now socialist.
The fact is, socialism has been creeping in since the 1920s and snowballed from there. We just didn’t notice it because the heat was being turned up slowly
Watch the video to understand. There is far too much involved to give every detail.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-24-2023, 10:44 PM
-
#65
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
Again, the government is itself a group. So, yes. By your original definition, every government that has ever existed was socialist. Any state that taxes to provide for a standing military is socialist by your definition.if the tax money goes in to the hands of an individual, group, or company from the central government, yes, it’s socialism. It is public money, because it was collected from the public, then given out to others. Unless it’s strictly to keep the government running, which it isn’t, it’s socialist.
In the 1980s, in an interview with Friedman, he stated there was an assessment done of the central government that concluded 47% of the central government’s spending was socialist. So if we put a line in the sand as to whether we are capitalist or socialist by using 50% as the line, then yes, it’s safe to say that every government in the world is now socialist.
The fact is, socialism has been creeping in since the 1920s and snowballed from there. We just didn’t notice it because the heat was being turned up slowly
In the 1980s, in an interview with Friedman, he stated there was an assessment done of the central government that concluded 47% of the central government’s spending was socialist. So if we put a line in the sand as to whether we are capitalist or socialist by using 50% as the line, then yes, it’s safe to say that every government in the world is now socialist.
The fact is, socialism has been creeping in since the 1920s and snowballed from there. We just didn’t notice it because the heat was being turned up slowly
And you're now adding things like "to keep the government running". Now what exactly does that mean? Running means what exactly? Doing what governments do? Like have public services, fund militaries, perform law enforcement? So where is the line drawn on what is and is not acceptable government function? Is it drawn by you? Do you want to be dictator?
Milton Friedman also supported UBI. Is that socialist? He was also wrong about a lot of things.
11-24-2023, 10:49 PM
-
#66
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
Now you’re projecting. Technically the military is an arm of the government, so by definition its not, however, it’s probably unconstitutional. Many of our forefathers, including Washington, I believe, said we shouldn’t have a standing army. Now the military industrial complex, well, thats def socialism, because it’s going to market companies. Likely because the government isn’t capable of producing anything efficiently and as good as the market can.Again, the government is itself a group. So, yes. By your definition, every government that has ever existed was socialist. Any state that taxes to provide for a standing military is socialist by your definition.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-24-2023, 10:54 PM
-
#67
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
Not projecting anything. I am going directly by your bad definition. Our founding fathers collected money from the public as a group. Ergo, they were all socialists by your original definition. Just admit your definition was poorly conceived and submit a better one.Now you’re projecting. Technically the military is an arm of the government, so by definition its not, however, it’s probably unconstitutional. Many of our forefathers, including Washington, I believe, said we shouldn’t have a standing army. Now the military industrial complex, well, thats def socialism, because it’s going to market companies. Likely because the government isn’t capable of producing anything efficiently and as good as the market can.
11-24-2023, 11:01 PM
-
#68
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
Then make your own economics thread.Not projecting anything. I am going directly by your bad definition. Our founding fathers collected money from the public as a group. Ergo, they were all socialists by your original definition. Just admit your definition was poorly conceived and submit a better one.
If anyone has suggestions for me to change anything, we can have a discussion. Otherwise, you’re trolling the thread.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-24-2023, 11:08 PM
-
#69
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
My suggestion is you come up with a definition for socialism that isn't so useless and general that it includes every state in human history. Work on that. I'd recommend just using the definition everyone else uses rather than the one you made up.Then make your own economics thread.
If anyone has suggestions for me to change anything, we can have a discussion. Otherwise, you’re trolling the thread.
If anyone has suggestions for me to change anything, we can have a discussion. Otherwise, you’re trolling the thread.
Edit: I see from your neg that using basic logic and pointing out flaws in your statements equates to "trolling" in your view. To that, I just have to say lol @ u, snowflake. Good day. Muh free market lmfaoooo
Glory to Stalin.
11-24-2023, 11:23 PM
-
#70
Originally Posted By brooootal⏩
The thread is "Facts and Fallacies". Not "Fallacies are facts when they are mainstream".My suggestion is you come up with a definition for socialism that isn't so useless and general that it includes every state in human history. Work on that. I'd recommend just using the definition everyone else uses rather than the one you made up.
Edit: I see from your neg that using basic logic and pointing out flaws in your statements equates to "trolling" in your view. To that, I just have to say lol @ u, snowflake. Good day. Muh free market lmfaoooo
Glory to Stalin.
Edit: I see from your neg that using basic logic and pointing out flaws in your statements equates to "trolling" in your view. To that, I just have to say lol @ u, snowflake. Good day. Muh free market lmfaoooo
Glory to Stalin.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-24-2023, 11:26 PM
-
#71
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
A useless definition being misrepresented to further your political aims is fallacious, no? Again, I made the argument very clear for how your definition fits every state in human history. Go back and fix it if you have anything meaningful to say. Otherwise, most of your claims are empty. By your own definition, you're a socialist unless you're a total anarchist.The thread is "Facts and Fallacies". Not "Fallacies are facts when they are mainstream".
This is called rigorous thought, btw. It's what you'd have learned if you ever studied math to the level needed to understand elementary economics. Definitions actually matter. Take them seriously. Try again.
11-25-2023, 12:37 PM
-
#72
I think I need to update the original posts to include how to form an argument and objection.
It makes me think of this quote from Socialism, by Mises. “Socialism largely succeeds in its establishment because opposing ideals are outlawed”. If you oppose the mainstream socialist ideals and definitions, it’s attacked immediately.
It makes me think of this quote from Socialism, by Mises. “Socialism largely succeeds in its establishment because opposing ideals are outlawed”. If you oppose the mainstream socialist ideals and definitions, it’s attacked immediately.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-25-2023, 12:53 PM
-
#73
Another interesting take by Mises in his book Socialism;
The term communism signifies just the same as Socialism. The use of these two words has repeatedly changed during the past decades, but always the question which separates socialists from communist was only political tactics. Both aimed to socialize the means of operation.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-25-2023, 04:46 PM
-
#74
- PenorBrahNoHomo
- R1b
-
- PenorBrahNoHomo
- R1b
- Join Date: Aug 2011
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 28,218
- Rep Power: 130149
-
-
Kraken got ethered by wincel in his own thread lol
11-25-2023, 11:06 PM
-
#75
Economic philosophy is fundamental to economics. If the philosophy is wrong, then the calculations are meaningless and absolutely wrong. You can dazzle someone with technicals, But if you don't know the laws of nature, then you are at Best fooling yourself. And at worst, destroying a society
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-26-2023, 01:15 AM
-
#76
- BigDeeps01
- Registered User
-
- BigDeeps01
- Registered User
- Join Date: Sep 2019
- Age: 56
- Posts: 26,735
- Rep Power: 169715
-
-
Originally Posted By alltrapbrah⏩
Sure, I suppose it's semantics, but not a useful thought at any rateI think what you mean is, money is “made” real by our belief in it and acting as though it is real. But in it’s truest sense, which is what IronManlet is getting at, it is imaginary.
Same thing as Santa Claus. Kids can believe in him all they want but that does not make him real.
Same thing as Santa Claus. Kids can believe in him all they want but that does not make him real.
11-29-2023, 07:47 AM
-
#77
What the real numbers look like right now.
GDP using inflation- .48%
GDP using CPI- 5.2%
We are officially recession.
GDP using inflation- .48%
GDP using CPI- 5.2%
We are officially recession.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-29-2023, 08:01 AM
-
#78
- Energetic94
- THE REAL BOSS
-
- Energetic94
- THE REAL BOSS
- Join Date: Dec 2011
- Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
- Posts: 658
- Rep Power: 154
-
-
Hi OP, can you give reference to your information. Whether it is a personal idea or an idea derived from somewhere. Such as the monetary policy of Friedman, where are the 4 different types derived from? I am asking for clarification as I'm interested in expanding my book collection of Economics.
And thank you for the thread, probably the most useful thread I've come across on Misc.
And thank you for the thread, probably the most useful thread I've come across on Misc.
I ride for my reds dawwwwwwwwg
I ride for my reds
I slide for my reds dawwwwwwwwg
I ride for my reds
11-29-2023, 08:10 AM
-
#79
Originally Posted By Energetic94⏩
I have memorized who said what, but not always exactly which book it was in. The categories of spending was likely in capitalism and freedom.Hi OP, can you give reference to your information. Whether it is a personal idea or an idea derived from somewhere. Such as the monetary policy of Friedman, where are the 4 different types derived from? I am asking for clarification as I'm interested in expanding my book collection of Economics.
And thank you for the thread, probably the most useful thread I've come across on Misc.
And thank you for the thread, probably the most useful thread I've come across on Misc.
Friedman was a professor at the Chicago school of economics, so you can find a lot of lectures from him as well.
Something to note about Milton Friedman is that he was a monetarist. I largely agree with his philosophies, but when it comes to the calculations, even Friedman had gotten some things wrong. Unfortunately he did not live long enough to find it is predictions and calculations did not pan out every time.
That said, he did take more of a libertarian stance on his economic philosophy. He was a big advocate for consideration of self interest. That it is human nature, and that with government interference, a society becomes more and more self-interested. He also lectured a lot on inflation, which was his specialty. He has a lot of good lectures on inflation.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-29-2023, 10:53 AM
-
#80
A reference to Mises in Human Action on why the mainstream economist tends to get things so wrong;
economic theory should be based on empirical historical evidence and the acting man, or praxeology, which is the driving force of an economy, being careful not to resort to a completely dialectical philosophy like Marx, Ingles, and socialism in general.
Every form of economic theory that uses calculations to manipulate the economy has eventually been proven wrong, from Keynes to the even monetarist.
The mathematical method must be rejected, not only on account of its barrenness, it is an entirely vicious method, starting from false assumptions, and leading to fallacious inferences. Its syllogisms are not sterile; they divert the mind from the study of the real problems, and distort the relations between the various phenomena.
In other words, as mentioned earlier, if your economic philosophy is wrong, then the calculations become not only arbitrary, but downright fallacious. Many economists see the economy as a series of 1s and 0s, without first and foremost taking in to consideration that the economy is, in reality, individuals who make decisions. These decisions can be very difficult, even impossible, to predict, and government interference causes individuals to make decisions based on self interest that can go in the opposite direction of what was intended.economic theory should be based on empirical historical evidence and the acting man, or praxeology, which is the driving force of an economy, being careful not to resort to a completely dialectical philosophy like Marx, Ingles, and socialism in general.
Every form of economic theory that uses calculations to manipulate the economy has eventually been proven wrong, from Keynes to the even monetarist.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-29-2023, 09:16 PM
-
#81
The Parkinson’s Law is the observation that the duration of public administration, bureaucracy and officialdom expands to fill its allotted time span, regardless of the amount of work to be done. This was attributed mainly to two factors: that officials want subordinates, not rivals, and that officials make work for each other. *wiki
In 1945 there were 10 million individuals employed on farms and the dept of Agriculture had 80,000 employees. By 1992, there were 3 million individuals employed on farms, and the Dept of Agriculture had 122,000 employees. Today there are 804,000 farm employees, and 105,000 at the dept of agriculture. Te amount of money that goes to the Dept of Ag is $475 billion. In 2019 it was $240B. This is one of the forces driving prices up. Imagine how cheap food would be if that agency was abolished.
On a similar topic, when labor done by Unions was assessed, economists (Hazlitt, Sowell, Mises, Friedman, Williams…) discovered that they were deliberately increasing the labor being done to increase their own wages. For instance, in one circumstance, pipes were cut and threaded at the factory, but once they arrived on the work site, the Union workers cut the ends of the pipes so that they could re thread them to get paid more hours. This dramatically cuts down on production and efficiency. Then on top of this, they coerce and even use force to get higher wages. In the Stocking riots, the manufacturer DuPont got machines to increase production, and the works destroyed the machines and the warehouse in protest. Today Unions are backed by state and federal laws, giving them even more monopoly power to coerce without having to use force, which is a major driving force of companies going overseas or moving to right to work states.
In 1945 there were 10 million individuals employed on farms and the dept of Agriculture had 80,000 employees. By 1992, there were 3 million individuals employed on farms, and the Dept of Agriculture had 122,000 employees. Today there are 804,000 farm employees, and 105,000 at the dept of agriculture. Te amount of money that goes to the Dept of Ag is $475 billion. In 2019 it was $240B. This is one of the forces driving prices up. Imagine how cheap food would be if that agency was abolished.
On a similar topic, when labor done by Unions was assessed, economists (Hazlitt, Sowell, Mises, Friedman, Williams…) discovered that they were deliberately increasing the labor being done to increase their own wages. For instance, in one circumstance, pipes were cut and threaded at the factory, but once they arrived on the work site, the Union workers cut the ends of the pipes so that they could re thread them to get paid more hours. This dramatically cuts down on production and efficiency. Then on top of this, they coerce and even use force to get higher wages. In the Stocking riots, the manufacturer DuPont got machines to increase production, and the works destroyed the machines and the warehouse in protest. Today Unions are backed by state and federal laws, giving them even more monopoly power to coerce without having to use force, which is a major driving force of companies going overseas or moving to right to work states.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
11-29-2023, 09:53 PM
-
#82
- LogicalLifts
- Registered User
-
- LogicalLifts
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2022
- Age: 56
- Posts: 13,157
- Rep Power: 204849
-
-
Originally Posted By WoofieNugget⏩
Parenting (education) is important and we seem to agree on that. I wouldn't know what it was like to have parents who lived on credit; my Grade 6 math teacher offered me the chance to tutor someone, no joke, and my dad would take me there for two hours on Sunday once a week for a while. I was boggled as a kid, but my dad took the money and when my bank account was opened taught me deposits, expenditure, budgeting, etc. He'd buy me an SNES or whatever and ask me to tell him how many hours of work that'd be, whether I thought it was worth it (of course!) and so on. I honestly feel like this sort of thing should be normal, but it's really not.Education does have a lot to do with it, especially financial education - which the US has basically zero of because it's such a consumer driven society. There's virtually no education on anything economic for regular joes such as budgeting, taxes, even corporate structure. Mostly because in 80% of schools people are barely passing math, let alone financial management. They also have parents who live on credit and can't afford their lives which gives them even less positive examples.
What another poster said above is true as well - generationally, people work FAR less now than they did even fifty years ago. Suggest to somebody that they work six days a week and they'll look at you like you have a hole in the head, meanwhile in (especially impoverished) countries it is the norm in order to support a family and have basic needs met. My kids sometimes complain when I have to do an hour of work on a weekend, but I explain to them how a business is run and that it's necessary, and I never let it interfere with activities or family time.
Because of the economic climate in the world, we are seeing much more opportunity for those who are willing to actually work, which is a good thing IMO. If you want to sit around and be lazy, don't complain.
What another poster said above is true as well - generationally, people work FAR less now than they did even fifty years ago. Suggest to somebody that they work six days a week and they'll look at you like you have a hole in the head, meanwhile in (especially impoverished) countries it is the norm in order to support a family and have basic needs met. My kids sometimes complain when I have to do an hour of work on a weekend, but I explain to them how a business is run and that it's necessary, and I never let it interfere with activities or family time.
Because of the economic climate in the world, we are seeing much more opportunity for those who are willing to actually work, which is a good thing IMO. If you want to sit around and be lazy, don't complain.
Worse, some folks these days would shriek 'child labor' - at the idea that a parent might want to directly teach their kid the "value of a dollar". An NYC mayor candidate (Ray McGuire) grew fromveryhumble beginnings in a rough part of NYC to become a juicy millionaire with Citigroup. Black, too. He suggested that one way to keep kids/teens off of stoops (and learning bad behaviors from street thugs) was to give them summer jobs. I kid you not, there were screeching democrats doing the whole 'omg child labor' nonsense.
I remember actual conversations where this happened, thought back to my own upbringing and did the "Thank God for my parents" thing, srs.
So there's some of this that is/should be attributable to the education system, but I firmly believe that it's the failure of the family in the modern era that makes so many Zoomers abject losers. (I'm either a super-late Gen X or a super-early Millennial).
On 'working far less' - let me put it like this: my father had a very, very prestigious career. He never once received a work call at home, his work was locked into an intranet at work that even once we had a modem at home he couldn't access from home. Never a work call on the weekends, and no cell phones.
Modern 'workaholics' are what ruin the workspace - folks spamming on all kinds of messenger chats, and the like - it's not that there's necessarily more productivity with all this, but folks sure have a lot more "buzz" around them. That's an additional major stressor these days, which leads folks to increasingly compulsive behaviors. Which, when linked with the ease that money can be spent today, loops around the the problem above with the lack of education.
12-02-2023, 03:28 PM
-
#83
The history of how corporations became monopolies, and why they these monopolies would not exist in a capitalist system. The brief explanation is that corporations are collectives, and public businesses, which puts them in to the public sector. Capitalism, is the private sector, and based on the private individual. Our constitution was created to protect the private individual, NOT collectives, but the courts ruled that corporations, under the 14th amendment, should be recognized as a private individual. This gave them monopoly power. Furthermore, it also allowed these collectives to push political agendas, since the ruling also gave them the right to free speech, and has also become the basis of bail outs. In essence, these are state backed monopolies now.
Oddly, there are two members here who claim to have degrees in economics, that call me a naïve nut job because of this perspective. When you have corporations, collectives, and the state funding Universities, it’s not too far fetched to realize they are teaching socialist and fascist views, not economics.
This is based on my own historical assessment and research, but this brief history helps give y’all a source other than me.
https://www.history.com/news/14th-am...ns-into-people
Oddly, there are two members here who claim to have degrees in economics, that call me a naïve nut job because of this perspective. When you have corporations, collectives, and the state funding Universities, it’s not too far fetched to realize they are teaching socialist and fascist views, not economics.
This is based on my own historical assessment and research, but this brief history helps give y’all a source other than me.
https://www.history.com/news/14th-am...ns-into-people
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
12-02-2023, 05:58 PM
-
#84
"One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans—anything except reason."
- Thomas Sowell
- Thomas Sowell
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
12-03-2023, 03:29 PM
-
#85
The logical ridiculousness of the socialist argument, is that they claim Capitalism allows companies to exploit workers, but their solution is exploitation of everyone.
Friedman points out that the socialist argument is no longer about the efficiency differences of market control vs nationalized control (economic arguments), because those have all long been debunked, and has moved on to vague and arbitrary talking points, because they have to distance themselves from the history of atrocities caused by socialism. For example, the inefficiencies of the post office compared to market companies. Redistribution of labor and wealth in China. Nazi Germany. Stalinist Russia. Politically, socially, and economically, socialism has failed on every front when compared to capitalism, so instead of arguing for specific policies that beat capitalism, they simply make vague complaints about random problems.
Friedman points out that the socialist argument is no longer about the efficiency differences of market control vs nationalized control (economic arguments), because those have all long been debunked, and has moved on to vague and arbitrary talking points, because they have to distance themselves from the history of atrocities caused by socialism. For example, the inefficiencies of the post office compared to market companies. Redistribution of labor and wealth in China. Nazi Germany. Stalinist Russia. Politically, socially, and economically, socialism has failed on every front when compared to capitalism, so instead of arguing for specific policies that beat capitalism, they simply make vague complaints about random problems.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
12-03-2023, 03:47 PM
-
#86
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
Wood drastically -- Wood 'drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.' You got that from Vickers, 'Work in Essex County,' page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you...is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend...you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f----n' education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.The logical ridiculousness of the socialist argument, is that they claim Capitalism allows companies to exploit workers, but their solution is exploitation of everyone.
Friedman points out that the socialist argument is no longer about the efficiency differences of market control vs nationalized control (economic arguments), because those have all long been debunked, and has moved on to vague and arbitrary talking points, because they have to distance themselves from the history of atrocities caused by socialism. For example, the inefficiencies of the post office compared to market companies. Redistribution of labor and wealth in China. Nazi Germany. Stalinist Russia. Politically, socially, and economically, socialism has failed on every front when compared to capitalism, so instead of arguing for specific policies that beat capitalism, they simply make vague complaints about random problems.
Friedman points out that the socialist argument is no longer about the efficiency differences of market control vs nationalized control (economic arguments), because those have all long been debunked, and has moved on to vague and arbitrary talking points, because they have to distance themselves from the history of atrocities caused by socialism. For example, the inefficiencies of the post office compared to market companies. Redistribution of labor and wealth in China. Nazi Germany. Stalinist Russia. Politically, socially, and economically, socialism has failed on every front when compared to capitalism, so instead of arguing for specific policies that beat capitalism, they simply make vague complaints about random problems.
12-03-2023, 03:55 PM
-
#87
Originally Posted By Ludwig
-Human ActionIf self-proclaimed moralists were not blinded by their envy, they would not deal with profits without simultaneously dealing with its counterpart; loss. Losses include invention, ingenuity, investment… only the entrepreneur creates progress, no one else. The laborer takes no loss. They only benefit from others loss
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
12-03-2023, 04:42 PM
-
#88
Originally Posted By Channel83⏩
Wood drastically -- Wood 'drastically underestimates the impact of social distinctions predicated upon wealth, especially inherited wealth.' You got that from Vickers, 'Work in Essex County,' page 98, right? Yeah, I read that too. Were you gonna plagiarize the whole thing for us? Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter? Or do you...is that your thing? You come into a bar. You read some obscure passage and then pretend...you pawn it off as your own idea just to impress some girls and embarrass my friend? See the sad thing about a guy like you is in 50 years you're gonna start doin' some thinkin' on your own and you're gonna come up with the fact that there are two certainties in life. One: don't do that. And two: You dropped a hundred and fifty grand on a f----n' education you coulda' got for a dollar fifty in late charges at the public library.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
12-03-2023, 05:00 PM
-
#89
- LogicalLifts
- Registered User
-
- LogicalLifts
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2022
- Age: 56
- Posts: 13,157
- Rep Power: 204849
-
-
Originally Posted By Kraken⏩
In my graduate school, you were expected to present your research as a grad student in a 'drinks and chat' format. Basically, other graduate studentsand facultywould hear you present a chapter, or an argument, or a problem you're facing etc. Their job was to try torubbishyou, and your supervisor was prohibited from helping in any way."One of the painful signs of years of dumbed-down education is how many people are unable to make a coherent argument. They can vent their emotions, question other people's motives, make bold assertions, repeat slogans—anything except reason."
- Thomas Sowell
- Thomas Sowell
I have told some folks where I work about this, and sadly even where I work many cringe at the idea and consider it too 'combative'. What they don't get, is the fact that everyone is made smarter by intellectual debate. It nurtures the mind and soul - it's something many folks crave, or would - if they knew what it was like.
This "I'm entitled to my opinion" and "my opinion is just as valid as yours" and "asking me to justify a statement is toxic" == a product of the modern education system. Plus the internet, which is a refuge for many "have nots" who hope to have their "opinion" validated in an echo chamber.
12-04-2023, 03:22 PM
-
#90
Hazlitt discusses the facts and fallacies of thetechnocrat. The technocrat mostly comprises of the laborer, and are against technological advancements in production out of fear from the potential to lose his job.
As mentioned earlier, we must look at both short term and long term results. Most economists, especially those in the mainstream, and socialists only look at a single worker and the immediate results. On one hand, a worker could lose his job as a result of the technology, but would be making a critical error in making the broad statement that “Technology kills jobs”.
These machines increase efficiency, supply, and demand, and can reduce costs and prices.
1. The first and most obvious outcome of this is lower prices. When the price is lowered, it can also increase demand. When demand goes up, so does the need for more labor when the company expands.
2. The lower prices will allow the consumer to keep more money in his pockets, which then allows him to spend money on other goods and services, providing demand for other products.
3. The technology itself also opens up labor demands, employing even more workers to build and maintain the new machines.
So the short term can have tragic results for the few, but the long term actually increases economic prosperity and lowers the cost of living, which means, the economy is better off.
An example of this is the auto industry. According to Hazlitt, in the 1920s, there were about 240,000 workers. With the advancements in efficiency, by the 1930s, there were about 380,000 workers. by the 1970s, there were almost 1 million workers. By this time, the airline industry was ramping up, employing hundreds of thousands more, and the technology used in automobiles employed 500,000 alone. Even though we have robots and machines doing a lot of the work, the prices and quality became so good, that demand sky rocketed.
Labor unions, however, prescribe to the fallacy that decreasing efficiency somehow creates jobs and work, when in reality, they just increase prices and decrease demand.
As mentioned earlier, we must look at both short term and long term results. Most economists, especially those in the mainstream, and socialists only look at a single worker and the immediate results. On one hand, a worker could lose his job as a result of the technology, but would be making a critical error in making the broad statement that “Technology kills jobs”.
These machines increase efficiency, supply, and demand, and can reduce costs and prices.
1. The first and most obvious outcome of this is lower prices. When the price is lowered, it can also increase demand. When demand goes up, so does the need for more labor when the company expands.
2. The lower prices will allow the consumer to keep more money in his pockets, which then allows him to spend money on other goods and services, providing demand for other products.
3. The technology itself also opens up labor demands, employing even more workers to build and maintain the new machines.
So the short term can have tragic results for the few, but the long term actually increases economic prosperity and lowers the cost of living, which means, the economy is better off.
An example of this is the auto industry. According to Hazlitt, in the 1920s, there were about 240,000 workers. With the advancements in efficiency, by the 1930s, there were about 380,000 workers. by the 1970s, there were almost 1 million workers. By this time, the airline industry was ramping up, employing hundreds of thousands more, and the technology used in automobiles employed 500,000 alone. Even though we have robots and machines doing a lot of the work, the prices and quality became so good, that demand sky rocketed.
Labor unions, however, prescribe to the fallacy that decreasing efficiency somehow creates jobs and work, when in reality, they just increase prices and decrease demand.
One party system; Most Republicans are Democrats, but no Democrats are Republicans.
Hayek and Mises were right; they're all socialists.
"To Call something fair or unfair is a subjective value judgment and not liable to any verification" Ludwig Von Mises
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts