Stop embarrassing yourself, unless you get off on it.

Who in this thread has mentioned the word socialism other than you?

You reek of an low IQ frat bro who has just read Atlas Shrugged for the first time and thinks he has stumbled upon something profound. You are arguing against a position nobody has made, which is a sure fire sign of actual retardation.

Why so unhinged? Could it be that socialists hate to be called out? If it walks like a duck…

So tell me, why are socialists like this?

Your post makes me want to read Fountain Head now. I had it on my list of books to read, but now I’m curious why it makes you so angry.

Who is angry?

Some of the people you alluded to, including Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek, supported unconditional cash transfers to the poor. Friedman had his negative income tax, Hayek supported a guaranteed minimum income.

None of these things contradict capitalism, or couldn't exist within a capitalist system. They are different ways of administering social spending/safety nets which every capitalist country has.

Going on a copy and pasted diatribe about socialism brings nothing to the discussion
. Which is why you give me strong low IQ 18 year old frat bro on his first week of lolbertardianism vibes. Kek.

He rejected what I proposed in defense of the status quo.

Another lie, he simply made it clear that he doesn't think that free cash transfers is a good idea.

Quote him saying that he believes spending should continue exactly as-is.

Another lie, he simply made it clear that he doesn't think that free cash transfers is a good idea.

Quote him saying that he believes spending should continue exactly as-is.

Spending in general or the conservative stance that people who are homeless made bad decisions and should get no societal support?

JLC uses projections to make his arguments. Its low IQ and troll-like behavior.

Example here. He can't make a good argument, so he creates a new one out of thin air. This will go on forever if you let it.

Its all about diverting away from sensible and reasonable discussions. Radicals use this tactic to "interrupt" speech that opposes their agenda. Its a tactic outlined in a lot of Marxist propaganda.

Spending in general or the conservative stance that people who are homeless made bad decisions and should get no societal support?

Spending in general or the conservative stance that people who are homeless made bad decisions and should get no societal support?

Quote him saying what he claimed he did (ie that he's fine with not"prioritizing within-nation spending over foreign support ")

We both know that you won't, because you can't, because it's a lie. But it's what we're talking about, so god ahead and try to back up your accusation.

He didn't say it. I said it and he rejected the notion.

He went on a diatribe about howrealcapitalism is the solution for homelessness.

Yeah that was a typo on my part, which I've corrected; you claim that he was in favour of foreign spending specifically over within-nation spending.

Now back up your claim and quote him saying that.

How much money has been spent on the war in Ukraine?

And now you’re making a strawman.

No, not really.

Do you think money spent on interventionist military strategies might be better spent within the country?

Could the financial aid sent overseas help if spent within the country?

Does that make the study any more viable? Is the money going to Ukraine magical or somehow spend differently than money going someplace else?

There are vast amounts of studies that show the source of the money has an impact on how it is spent, but it is still coming from the government, which means it doesn't make a difference. It still fits into the same category of spending.

Okay.

One criticism of this study put forth was that it didn't include a lot of people or go on for several years.

Doing either or both of those things would require additional funding.

Couldn't money sent as aid to other countries be used to try this combination approach within the country?

Is it preferable for tax payers' money to leave the country rather than spent within their borders?

America has already attempted many social experiments that are almost exactly the same and they almost all failed. Why should we support yet another that we know has a very high chance of not only failing, but creating unintended and opposite outcomes?

in the words of Hayek “You have to know what can go right before you can know what can go wrong”. In other words, you want to do a social experiment that contradicts what we know works, and have a pretty good idea of what can go wrong.

This was the exchange:

What defines a solution?

I'd start with what and how.

This was the exchange:

So you admit that you're a liar?

He didn't say it. I said it and he rejected the notion.

He went on a diatribe about howrealcapitalism is the solution for homelessness.

Nope.

Looks like it went as I described.

I responded to your rejection of the idea of prioritizing within-nation spending over foreign support

I don't care what you guys talked about later RE capitalism vs socialism, stop trying to shift the goal-posts. You said:





and I'm calling you a liar as he never "rejected prioritizing within-nation spending over foreign support."

You lied, as proven by the fact you can't find a quote from him where he says what you claim he believes.

The exchange is right there.

And nowhere did he state what you claim he does.

So are you admitting you're a liar?

Hey I found a thread where Kraken actually talks about something substantive at last! And whoo-ee it's a doozy.

Why does it matter what form of capitalism we are? None of those things you listed have made a dent in the ultimate drivers that define capitalism - private property and the profit motive. But let's follow along your logic path - Yes, we have more government intervention. Why is that? Do you not think these regulations were written with blood in response to some aberration against human rights or market disruptions that capitalism caused? Why do we have labor unions? They're not government mandated, they're grassroots reactions to the imbalance of negotiating power between capital and labor. Everything you listed are direct response to capitalism being ruthlessly exploitative against anyone who isn't a capital owner.

Famously through US history there has never been any examples of employers exploiting the chit out workers in the absence of unions or regulation, let's go back to that. We thankfully have more protections against the excesses of capitalism than 100 years ago, does that make us less of an absolute form of capitalism? Yes, sure, and thank god (or rather unions and socialists) for it.

No one has to accept your premise that we've "moved away from capitalism", we're still quite clearly deep into capitalism, you're just mad that its not anarcho-capitalism. Yes, lets completely abolish any avenue of power redistribution and make people subservient to private interests. Homelessness has gone up because the cost of shelter has increased far over what wages bring. We can argue over the causes of the price increases, but I think we can agree badly designed policy such as local zoning laws are at least partly to blame. You should also be able to acknowledge that left to their own devices, private builders have prioritized building wealthier people homes because its higher margin, leaving more affordable ones to languish. Another problem inherent to capitalism, chase where the money is greatest, not necessarily where is best for society.

Yes, government can do better at the very least reducing the obvious excesses of capitalism. All of your sweet analysis conveniently ignores how much wealth inequality your "lesser capitalism" has brought over the years. Man all that government regulation is sure doing a terrible job flattening out wealth accumulation if that's what you think is happening. Shouldn't rich people have gotten less rich over time if we're experiencing less capitalism? You talk about societies accelerating at faster pace before policies - Accelerating faster for who? According to what metrics? Where did those gains largely go to? Do we have a perfect correlation for what would have happened if government had instead administered those services?



You don't see Austrian economics anywhere in government because it lacks alot of empirical rigor. The same can be said about the methods of your favorite economist, Thomas Sowell. How do you not realize that you're advocating for a form of extremism - more unregulated capitalism?

Yes, let's manipulate the single flawed metric of unemployment by providing less-than-minimum wage jobs. Look, there are more terrible jobs that pay <$5/hr but hey unemployment went down, its a success! No, the minimum wage is already laughably low, and cannot support a single person's modest living expenses virtually all counties in the US. Removing it to make it even lower will help those people and lift all boats? Are you sure it won't just continue enriching capital owners, something we already have an insane amount of?

The only thing we may somewhat agree on is how bad our current economic strategy is: providing government funding to private corps to do something gets us the worst of both worlds - corps more interested in optimizing how to get more funds from the government rather than optimizing the product or process, thus defeating innovation, raises the barriers to entry so less competition that would otherwise (theoretically) lower prices and on the other side of it, we don't even get the thing for cheaper or better - student loans are a great example of this. If you simply have the government administer these services, particularly those that have pretty inelastic demand like public utilities, its cuts out so much of these nonsensical market dynamics. Weird that my water bill has always been pretty affordable with no interruptions in service. Don't they know the government can't do anything right? We should privatize that!

The thing that makes your arguments so silly is that other countries with your definition oflesscapitalism like ones closer to social democracies are doing better than the US in virtually every metric affecting their citizens. They're live examples, not theoretical drivel, and its hasn't played out like you argue it should have. If more direct government intervention would be so costly and inefficient for our country to implement things like socialized healthcare or government housing, why hasn't Austria or Norway or the UK collapsed yet? Don't they know the free market would perform much better and lead to better outcomes for all citizens? It's almost like having the government running these services directly cuts out rent-seeking middlemen and aligns incentives along a mission, not profit. The key, just like any other large organization, is good governance. Design and enforce good practices and you'll avoid 99% of the waste fraud and abuse that conservatives are so sure is inherent to government, never mind that it happens in every giant corporation just the same.

Hey weird that you forgot in that list of things that are people: you know what else is? Government. Companies being called people in Citizens United got us some of the grossest infusions of dark money to further entrench corporate interest in US politics. You don't even have to ascribe to your favorite boogeyman, Marxist theory, to realize all the pitfalls in capitalism and how there are real life examples of increased state intervention being better for wider swaths of ordinary people - not just the few at the top.

Absolutely bodied. Repped

It was already proven that cash gift cards given out to the homeless after Katrina were spent at the Hard Rock Casino and liquor stores.

Cool story, bro.

...

Why is screening for clear confounders a problem in a controlled trial?