It was suggested that I make a new thread dedicated to expanding on this question:
>Well what about the falling rate of profit? Think the reason so many people are putting their bets on communism is they're just hoping something works if capitalism ends up not working--which seems to be the case.
>Someone needs to figure out the logistics no matter what happens in the future. If nationalism, what economic system? If communism, what flavor? If barbarism, how do we power the grain mill? If feudalism, what do we do when that evolves into capitalism again and we're in this situation again but without oil?
Do we have a contingency plan if the capitalism/neoliberal economics thing doesn't work out? How do we do an economic system if profit ends up being on average impossible in the future?
/mlpol/ - My Little Politics
97 replies and 20 files omitted.
Douglas social credit
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit
>Social credit is a distributive philosophy of political economy developed in the 1920s and 1930s by C. H. Douglas. Douglas attributed economic downturns to discrepancies between the cost of goods and the compensation of the workers who made them. To combat what he saw as a chronic deficiency of purchasing power in the economy, Douglas prescribed government intervention in the form of the issuance of debt-free money directly to consumers or producers (if they sold their product below cost to consumers) in order to combat such discrepancy.[1]
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit
>Social credit is a distributive philosophy of political economy developed in the 1920s and 1930s by C. H. Douglas. Douglas attributed economic downturns to discrepancies between the cost of goods and the compensation of the workers who made them. To combat what he saw as a chronic deficiency of purchasing power in the economy, Douglas prescribed government intervention in the form of the issuance of debt-free money directly to consumers or producers (if they sold their product below cost to consumers) in order to combat such discrepancy.[1]
>>384890
I'll look into that, found a sorta Kurzgesagt style video series about it: [YouTube] Episode #1: What is the Purpose of the Economy?![]()
I'll look into that, found a sorta Kurzgesagt style video series about it: [YouTube] Episode #1: What is the Purpose of the Economy?
>>384901
You should look into distributism too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
>Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated.[1] Developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distributism was based upon Catholic social teaching principles, especially those of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931).[2][3][4] It has influenced Anglo Christian Democratic movements,[5][6] and has been recognized as one of many influences on the social market economy.[7][8]
You should look into distributism too.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism
>Distributism is an economic theory asserting that the world's productive assets should be widely owned rather than concentrated.[1] Developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, distributism was based upon Catholic social teaching principles, especially those of Pope Leo XIII in his encyclical Rerum novarum (1891) and Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo anno (1931).[2][3][4] It has influenced Anglo Christian Democratic movements,[5][6] and has been recognized as one of many influences on the social market economy.[7][8]
>>384880
Capitalism is evil because it entails usury and the abolition of morals. We should be invested in "economics" as much as we are invested in destroying those evils.
I dont think most ancaps fully understand the concept of "property" either. Without the state, a property just becomes a territory. What matters though is that they do understand the importance of private ownership and capital. (Please dont chew me out ancaps, I am against the thing called capital-ISM, not capital)
So long as we uphold the importance of the market economy and private property, we are on the right track. And also condemn the elephant in the room, which would be (((lending practices))), the international bankers, and the import of cheap brown labor into white societies
Capitalism is evil because it entails usury and the abolition of morals. We should be invested in "economics" as much as we are invested in destroying those evils.
I dont think most ancaps fully understand the concept of "property" either. Without the state, a property just becomes a territory. What matters though is that they do understand the importance of private ownership and capital. (Please dont chew me out ancaps, I am against the thing called capital-ISM, not capital)
So long as we uphold the importance of the market economy and private property, we are on the right track. And also condemn the elephant in the room, which would be (((lending practices))), the international bankers, and the import of cheap brown labor into white societies
>>384890
Not sure how efficient it will be to calculate the "true cost" of goods and enact price controls. The average man should atleast earn a family wage, whatever it is that supports a man and his family. Women must be removed from the workforce though
Not sure how efficient it will be to calculate the "true cost" of goods and enact price controls. The average man should atleast earn a family wage, whatever it is that supports a man and his family. Women must be removed from the workforce though
>>385087
I've heard of market socialism, so preserving markets--and presumably capital by extension? At least I assume markets and capital are a bundle--outside capitalism seems like something people are trying to figure out.
Do you have a specific system in mind?
I've heard of market socialism, so preserving markets--and presumably capital by extension? At least I assume markets and capital are a bundle--outside capitalism seems like something people are trying to figure out.
Do you have a specific system in mind?
>>385099
I think we need to go on offense against the word "capitalism" while not being anti capital. The reason being is because the term has been hyjacked by neocon boomer inc. We cant use that word to represent our interests. Unless we're reffering strictly to a market economy and private property, even then its not safe.
Instead of coming up with a new economic system, it might be better to just watch the world crash and burn. After all whites already invented the stable structures of economies, from feudalism to modern era. The extreme ends of economics being a result of foreign occupation, and a recipe for foriegn invasion. Capitalism or communism, one is where jews rape everyone financially, the other one is where the lumpenproles rob everyone of their property and possesions.
I think we need to go on offense against the word "capitalism" while not being anti capital. The reason being is because the term has been hyjacked by neocon boomer inc. We cant use that word to represent our interests. Unless we're reffering strictly to a market economy and private property, even then its not safe.
Instead of coming up with a new economic system, it might be better to just watch the world crash and burn. After all whites already invented the stable structures of economies, from feudalism to modern era. The extreme ends of economics being a result of foreign occupation, and a recipe for foriegn invasion. Capitalism or communism, one is where jews rape everyone financially, the other one is where the lumpenproles rob everyone of their property and possesions.
>>385112
So, renaming the Titanic while waiting for it to hit the iceberg? I imagine existing institutions would love that, and we'll likely see a lot of countries try just that, but that's not really what the thread is about. People will continue existing during all that crashing and burning and such, and I'm curious how economies may adapt or emerge going forward in spite of that.
So, renaming the Titanic while waiting for it to hit the iceberg? I imagine existing institutions would love that, and we'll likely see a lot of countries try just that, but that's not really what the thread is about. People will continue existing during all that crashing and burning and such, and I'm curious how economies may adapt or emerge going forward in spite of that.
>>385124
Fair enough. I was just ranting. If jews and indians take over we will all live in pods and it will be like something out of a horror film
Fair enough. I was just ranting. If jews and indians take over we will all live in pods and it will be like something out of a horror film
>>385126
>Centralisation filter
I think it's less that centralisation kills itself with maladaptive policy and more that centralisation goes hand-in-hand with a self-destructive drive for efficiency and an increasing degree of risk aversion. Advancement beyond a certain point ceases to be efficient for a society, so it chooses stagnation over risk, consumes the necessary resources to escape its gravity well subsisting, then subsists itself back to a pre-industrial state as necessary resources to maintain a post-industrial society are likewise consumed. We can see this occuring now, advancements are being made but none of it is being applied seriously, we're essentially spinning our wheels waiting for a breakthrough that may never come while the global population continues to rise.
For example, we're running out of helium, that shit doesn't come back and synthesising it is wildly energy intensive. It is a critical resource in the manufacture of computational components. The technocrats may have a point, as much as I hate to say it, yet giving command of society over to a bunch of out-of-touch eccentrics is not an option.
Whatever social structure is necessary to survive this filter demands, ironically, an extreme degree of greed baked into its substrate, it merely need be purposed towards survival rather than subsistence.
[Read more] >Centralisation filter
I think it's less that centralisation kills itself with maladaptive policy and more that centralisation goes hand-in-hand with a self-destructive drive for efficiency and an increasing degree of risk aversion. Advancement beyond a certain point ceases to be efficient for a society, so it chooses stagnation over risk, consumes the necessary resources to escape its gravity well subsisting, then subsists itself back to a pre-industrial state as necessary resources to maintain a post-industrial society are likewise consumed. We can see this occuring now, advancements are being made but none of it is being applied seriously, we're essentially spinning our wheels waiting for a breakthrough that may never come while the global population continues to rise.
For example, we're running out of helium, that shit doesn't come back and synthesising it is wildly energy intensive. It is a critical resource in the manufacture of computational components. The technocrats may have a point, as much as I hate to say it, yet giving command of society over to a bunch of out-of-touch eccentrics is not an option.
Whatever social structure is necessary to survive this filter demands, ironically, an extreme degree of greed baked into its substrate, it merely need be purposed towards survival rather than subsistence.
>>384880
>Well what about the falling rate of profit?
Increasing gov’t regulations + decreasing genetic ability to succeed; i.e (genetic predisposition for) intelligence, impulse control, planning etc all going down to due dysgenic breeding.
>Well what about the falling rate of profit?
Increasing gov’t regulations + decreasing genetic ability to succeed; i.e (genetic predisposition for) intelligence, impulse control, planning etc all going down to due dysgenic breeding.
>>385097
>The average man should at least earn a family wage
What happens when the population degenerates due to lower quality people outbreeding those of higher quality, causes the “average man” to become above average? We’d need an objective measure for the “average man” (standard man), and a method to measure and compare an individual from the population to this “standard man”.
>The average man should at least earn a family wage
What happens when the population degenerates due to lower quality people outbreeding those of higher quality, causes the “average man” to become above average? We’d need an objective measure for the “average man” (standard man), and a method to measure and compare an individual from the population to this “standard man”.
>>385087
>evil because it entails usury
Whats the issue with two adults making a deal with each other? If A is happy to pay interest to B in return for B giving them a loan, what's the damage?
>I dont think most ancaps fully understand the concept of "property" either. Without the state, a property just becomes a territory.
Specifically;
>Without the state, a property just becomes a territory.
Is this statement trying to encapsulate that your property is whatever you can use violence or threat of it to keep hold of? If so, I agree, but I don't see a principle difference between property defined with or without a state. There's just a different source of violence.
>evil because it entails usury
Whats the issue with two adults making a deal with each other? If A is happy to pay interest to B in return for B giving them a loan, what's the damage?
>I dont think most ancaps fully understand the concept of "property" either. Without the state, a property just becomes a territory.
Specifically;
>Without the state, a property just becomes a territory.
Is this statement trying to encapsulate that your property is whatever you can use violence or threat of it to keep hold of? If so, I agree, but I don't see a principle difference between property defined with or without a state. There's just a different source of violence.
>>385167
You know how Europeans got as smart as they did? (After the ice age already making them smart) Having the father choose who his daughter marries. For a very very long time, getting a girl was as "simple" as mastering a craft and proving your good behavior and ability to provide to a father, who would entrust you with his daughter. (Who'd then belong to you after marriage) Why are there so many Smiths? Because blacksmiths made bank in England, that's why. They had an easy time getting wives, even if they were autists who just wanted to tinker with their forge all day.
Patriarchy is all the eugenics you need. It ensures the competent, disciplined and well-behaved men get to breed while the failures become outcasts. The moment women started being allowed to make their own choices regarding a mate is the moment divorces spiked, birth rates started to fall, and dysgenics to start. No need for draconian eugenics law that would make everyone mad. Just let dad choose who gets his girl. That already functions as eugenics.
You know how Europeans got as smart as they did? (After the ice age already making them smart) Having the father choose who his daughter marries. For a very very long time, getting a girl was as "simple" as mastering a craft and proving your good behavior and ability to provide to a father, who would entrust you with his daughter. (Who'd then belong to you after marriage) Why are there so many Smiths? Because blacksmiths made bank in England, that's why. They had an easy time getting wives, even if they were autists who just wanted to tinker with their forge all day.
Patriarchy is all the eugenics you need. It ensures the competent, disciplined and well-behaved men get to breed while the failures become outcasts. The moment women started being allowed to make their own choices regarding a mate is the moment divorces spiked, birth rates started to fall, and dysgenics to start. No need for draconian eugenics law that would make everyone mad. Just let dad choose who gets his girl. That already functions as eugenics.
>>385087
>Capitalism is evil because it entails usury and the abolition of morals
lack of coercion in human interaction (trade instead of violent takeover of property) is obviously moral
>Capitalism is evil because it entails usury and the abolition of morals
lack of coercion in human interaction (trade instead of violent takeover of property) is obviously moral
>>385087
>Capitalism is evil because it entails usury
Usury is not a mandatory component of capitalism, try again.
>Capitalism is evil because it entails usury
Usury is not a mandatory component of capitalism, try again.
>>385171
>Patriarchy is all the eugenics you need.
I don't think it's strong enough to combat the naturally dysgenic pressures of complex civilization. Technology like sewers, trade networks, healthcare etc reduce child mortality greatly and dramatically lower what degree of intelligence (etc) is needed to survive; pressures selecting for bad traits. The result is stupid people are able to have lots of children (that they otherwise wouldn't), of which all survive to breeding age (which naturally would've died as infants). Worse is there are technologies which create selection pressures actively working against good traits, e.g. all forms of contraception; a person of high impulse control will remember to put on a condom, someone with low impulse control will go in raw; an intelligent person will read and adhere to the instructions for using contraceptive pills correctly, a stupid person will take one pill right before action.
When you consider how many selection pressures are acting for bad (dysgenic) traits, and operating against good (eugenic) traits, I think you will realize how powerfully dysgenic modern complex civilization really is.
I think one of the few eugenics systems that could work is free-market genetic engineering. Any eugenics system will have an uphill battle, from both technological and cultural implementation.
[Read more] >Patriarchy is all the eugenics you need.
I don't think it's strong enough to combat the naturally dysgenic pressures of complex civilization. Technology like sewers, trade networks, healthcare etc reduce child mortality greatly and dramatically lower what degree of intelligence (etc) is needed to survive; pressures selecting for bad traits. The result is stupid people are able to have lots of children (that they otherwise wouldn't), of which all survive to breeding age (which naturally would've died as infants). Worse is there are technologies which create selection pressures actively working against good traits, e.g. all forms of contraception; a person of high impulse control will remember to put on a condom, someone with low impulse control will go in raw; an intelligent person will read and adhere to the instructions for using contraceptive pills correctly, a stupid person will take one pill right before action.
When you consider how many selection pressures are acting for bad (dysgenic) traits, and operating against good (eugenic) traits, I think you will realize how powerfully dysgenic modern complex civilization really is.
I think one of the few eugenics systems that could work is free-market genetic engineering. Any eugenics system will have an uphill battle, from both technological and cultural implementation.
>>384914
you do have leslie fair retard. communism is just ancap wet dream of making it illegal for the proles and mcslaves to not buy their products after they buy out the entire monopoly board.
you do have leslie fair retard. communism is just ancap wet dream of making it illegal for the proles and mcslaves to not buy their products after they buy out the entire monopoly board.
>>385185
>you do have leslie fair retard
I can't create some items without a loicense
I can't deny service to """protected class"""es
I can't produce certain products "thanks" to patents
>communism is just ancap wet dream of making it illegal for the proles and mcslaves to not buy their products after they buy out the entire monopoly board.
oh you're actually retarded
>you do have leslie fair retard
I can't create some items without a loicense
I can't deny service to """protected class"""es
I can't produce certain products "thanks" to patents
>communism is just ancap wet dream of making it illegal for the proles and mcslaves to not buy their products after they buy out the entire monopoly board.
oh you're actually retarded
I bought a cured and cooked gammon joint and 6 bottles of cider for a tenner, a third if my hourly wage. I doubt I'd get the same amount under communism.
>>385167
Its up to you to justify why all essential full time 40 hr week jobs dont deserve a family pay, given a worker has shown himself to be reliable and efficient? Thats what I mean by average man, maybe I should use different wording?
>>385168
Private property without usury is keynesianism? Sure thats national socialism, Hitlers economic policy. Since the existence of the state relies on taking, it should give back to the people. Thats what Hitler did with child tax credits, the most effective way for the state to give back. If you had a child in nazi germany, the government payed off 1/4 of your home mortgage. So if you had 4 children, the government fully payed off your house. All of this only makes sense to do. Everything else Hitler did in the economy was basically laissez-faire efficient. A lot of lolberts complain that he was "socialist" but not really in the colloquial sense only in name
>>385170
You can see why the Catholic Church and many others have been against usury, before and even after the vatican bank got taken over by the Rothschilds.
Economic collapse 101:
banks loans at high interest, bank secretly knows the debt never gets paid off, bank runs out of money, government bails out bank by printing more money. Money supply increases, increasing inflation and concentration of wealth into the pockets of the rich. Thats why usury has been banned so many times in the past
>>385172
>>385173
Thanks for ignoring the context in what I said after. Capitalism it its very basic meaning considers capital over labor. Thats the idea that lets usury florish
[Read more] Its up to you to justify why all essential full time 40 hr week jobs dont deserve a family pay, given a worker has shown himself to be reliable and efficient? Thats what I mean by average man, maybe I should use different wording?
>>385168
Private property without usury is keynesianism? Sure thats national socialism, Hitlers economic policy. Since the existence of the state relies on taking, it should give back to the people. Thats what Hitler did with child tax credits, the most effective way for the state to give back. If you had a child in nazi germany, the government payed off 1/4 of your home mortgage. So if you had 4 children, the government fully payed off your house. All of this only makes sense to do. Everything else Hitler did in the economy was basically laissez-faire efficient. A lot of lolberts complain that he was "socialist" but not really in the colloquial sense only in name
>>385170
You can see why the Catholic Church and many others have been against usury, before and even after the vatican bank got taken over by the Rothschilds.
Economic collapse 101:
banks loans at high interest, bank secretly knows the debt never gets paid off, bank runs out of money, government bails out bank by printing more money. Money supply increases, increasing inflation and concentration of wealth into the pockets of the rich. Thats why usury has been banned so many times in the past
>>385172
>>385173
Thanks for ignoring the context in what I said after. Capitalism it its very basic meaning considers capital over labor. Thats the idea that lets usury florish
>>385267
>Capitalism [in] its very basic meaning considers capital over labor. Thats the idea that lets usury florish
do you believe in labor theory of value? Just asking
>Capitalism [in] its very basic meaning considers capital over labor. Thats the idea that lets usury florish
do you believe in labor theory of value? Just asking
>>385267
>Everything else Hitler did in the economy was basically laissez-faire efficient
oh didn't notice this, you're outright retarded
>Everything else Hitler did in the economy was basically laissez-faire efficient
oh didn't notice this, you're outright retarded
>>385273
Not that anon, but the labor theory of value is true. Labor is what creates value even Adam Smith agreeded on this. You can argue that demand sets the price of a good, but demand cannot create value.
Not that anon, but the labor theory of value is true. Labor is what creates value even Adam Smith agreeded on this. You can argue that demand sets the price of a good, but demand cannot create value.
>>385167
Seems to me like any economy would be able to avoid the plot of idiocracy from happening, so that could be it's own thread.
The role of regulations in an economy is relevant though since different economic systems would employ those differently, and some regulations may have different effects depending on the economy they're employed in.
Seems to me like any economy would be able to avoid the plot of idiocracy from happening, so that could be it's own thread.
The role of regulations in an economy is relevant though since different economic systems would employ those differently, and some regulations may have different effects depending on the economy they're employed in.
forgot about le flag, gonna continue posting with it
>>385279
Value is subjective because wants and desires of human beings are subjective
products with low "labor value" can be expensive: Many works of art are sold for millions not because they were difficult to make, but because people want them. /v/idya items with the only "labor" put into them being a click of a mouse button on a lootbox can sell for thousands. Certain items have a boosted value because they're made/advertised by certain people (see CWC's "official merch").
Products with high "labor value" can be sold at a loss: video game consoles, for example, can be sold at a loss by their producers because games for them (sold at a rather high value) make more profit than the hardware (and one can't use his console without buying games)
if you still deny subject theory of value then answer this: if "everything is valued by labor" then who values said labor?
>>385284
his love for private property was so high that he ceased his citizens' private property to get foreign citizens' private property kek
[Read more] >>385279
Value is subjective because wants and desires of human beings are subjective
products with low "labor value" can be expensive: Many works of art are sold for millions not because they were difficult to make, but because people want them. /v/idya items with the only "labor" put into them being a click of a mouse button on a lootbox can sell for thousands. Certain items have a boosted value because they're made/advertised by certain people (see CWC's "official merch").
Products with high "labor value" can be sold at a loss: video game consoles, for example, can be sold at a loss by their producers because games for them (sold at a rather high value) make more profit than the hardware (and one can't use his console without buying games)
if you still deny subject theory of value then answer this: if "everything is valued by labor" then who values said labor?
>>385284
his love for private property was so high that he ceased his citizens' private property to get foreign citizens' private property kek
>>385301
I'm not saying there isn't a subjective element I'm saying only labor can create value. Labor creates video games, computers, houses, ect and extracts the raw resources necessary to create those things. Subjective desires do not create anything. Labor is what creates value.
I'm not saying there isn't a subjective element I'm saying only labor can create value. Labor creates video games, computers, houses, ect and extracts the raw resources necessary to create those things. Subjective desires do not create anything. Labor is what creates value.
>>385303
following this logic one can't pay the other to stop doing something ("I'll pay you $100 to shut up") because "service" provided here has no labor
following this logic one can't pay the other to stop doing something ("I'll pay you $100 to shut up") because "service" provided here has no labor
>>385313
Wouldn't the labor be the talking beforehand, to put the other party in a situation where they would want it to cease?
Wouldn't the labor be the talking beforehand, to put the other party in a situation where they would want it to cease?
>>385331
what if said action isn't labor but just presence? (I'll give you money just to move out of my neighborhood)
also your phrase that
>Labor is what creates value.
doesn't work with natural resources
if, for example, a plot of land that I own has a tree present and my neighbor asks me if he can buy it and cut it, this raises a question: where does the value come from?
according to you value comes from nature planting it (and this raises a question about "nature" being a actual acting subject or not)
according to me value comes from my neighbor's desire for wood
what if said action isn't labor but just presence? (I'll give you money just to move out of my neighborhood)
also your phrase that
>Labor is what creates value.
doesn't work with natural resources
if, for example, a plot of land that I own has a tree present and my neighbor asks me if he can buy it and cut it, this raises a question: where does the value come from?
according to you value comes from nature planting it (and this raises a question about "nature" being a actual acting subject or not)
according to me value comes from my neighbor's desire for wood
>>385339
Has anyone tried a conversion theory of value?
>thesis: value created by labor
<antithesis: some things are valuable before the labor
>synthesis: the opportunity to do labor and follow through of it creates value
So one might value being able to focus to work on their Gundam model kits, but their neighbor is noisy, so they pay them to move out.
So someone needs to turn trees into wood, so they buy logs that can be made into wood.
Has someone done that yet? Is that new?
Has anyone tried a conversion theory of value?
>thesis: value created by labor
<antithesis: some things are valuable before the labor
>synthesis: the opportunity to do labor and follow through of it creates value
So one might value being able to focus to work on their Gundam model kits, but their neighbor is noisy, so they pay them to move out.
So someone needs to turn trees into wood, so they buy logs that can be made into wood.
Has someone done that yet? Is that new?
>>385350
>the opportunity to do labor and follow through of it creates value
how exactly expensive anime figurines help one do labor?
>the opportunity to do labor and follow through of it creates value
how exactly expensive anime figurines help one do labor?
>>385313
It would certainly take effort on my part to keep quiet if someone was paying me $100 not to say anything as they said something stupid. That is a form of labor.
It would certainly take effort on my part to keep quiet if someone was paying me $100 not to say anything as they said something stupid. That is a form of labor.
>>385339
The value came from nature and the labor needed to process nature into something your neighbor wanted. The desire for wood did not CREATE anything.
The value came from nature and the labor needed to process nature into something your neighbor wanted. The desire for wood did not CREATE anything.
>>385364
>The value came from nature and the labor needed to process nature into something your neighbor wanted
my neighbor wants a tree that I never watered or really interacted with
>The value came from nature and the labor needed to process nature into something your neighbor wanted
my neighbor wants a tree that I never watered or really interacted with
>>385358
The labor is the assembly of the figurine. If that's insufficient then chose any other focus intensive labor, like programming.
If someone is watching this thread as I fumble to quote the right post, yes I'm caffinated and thus not sober.
The labor is the assembly of the figurine. If that's insufficient then chose any other focus intensive labor, like programming.
If someone is watching this thread as I fumble to quote the right post, yes I'm caffinated and thus not sober.
>>385372
With the tree example you have to take the tree's own labor in growing into account, so the tree wouldn't count as a natural resource, since organisms artificially create themselves.
Something like a boulder would be more fitting for this example, or even a chunk of a mountain, since that's just physics before any labor goes into it.
With the tree example you have to take the tree's own labor in growing into account, so the tree wouldn't count as a natural resource, since organisms artificially create themselves.
Something like a boulder would be more fitting for this example, or even a chunk of a mountain, since that's just physics before any labor goes into it.
>>385372
by force of nature
and if you want to argue about "nature's labor" then we go back to my previous post
>(and this raises a question about "nature" being a actual acting subject or not)
>>385374
>The labor is the assembly of the figurine
wait, so the value of the figurine comes from the opportunity to do labor (more firgurines)? Is this your point?
>yes I'm caffinated and thus not sober.
how much cups, anon?
>>385382
oh you actually want to argue about fucking plants doing labor
by force of nature
and if you want to argue about "nature's labor" then we go back to my previous post
>(and this raises a question about "nature" being a actual acting subject or not)
>>385374
>The labor is the assembly of the figurine
wait, so the value of the figurine comes from the opportunity to do labor (more firgurines)? Is this your point?
>yes I'm caffinated and thus not sober.
how much cups, anon?
>>385382
oh you actually want to argue about fucking plants doing labor
>>385384
Nature is part of the equation sure, but nature didn't chop that tree down or process it. What force did that?
Nature is part of the equation sure, but nature didn't chop that tree down or process it. What force did that?
>>385385
>Nature is part of the equation sure, but nature didn't chop that tree down or process it. What force did that?
neighbor wants a tree
he offers me $N for the tree
I either accept N dollars or we settle for M bucks for the tree
he chops down his newly bought property
labor comes after the purchase of the item
>Nature is part of the equation sure, but nature didn't chop that tree down or process it. What force did that?
neighbor wants a tree
he offers me $N for the tree
I either accept N dollars or we settle for M bucks for the tree
he chops down his newly bought property
labor comes after the purchase of the item
>>385384
>wait, so the value of the figurine comes from the opportunity to do labor (more firgurines)? Is this your point?
Yeah exactly. Like who would buy a prebuilt lego kit? (well I imagine someone, but the fun of lego is the building)
>how much cups, anon?
Probably too much, my mug holds maybe 2/3's of a 4 cup measuring beaker, and I've had 2 mugs... Oh god, I think I'll just have water the rest of the day.
>oh you actually want to argue about fucking plants doing labor
Well idk at what point does organic activity start to do labor that can count toward the economy? I might be overabstracting (or deabstracting?) but I thought that's worth mentioning.
>wait, so the value of the figurine comes from the opportunity to do labor (more firgurines)? Is this your point?
Yeah exactly. Like who would buy a prebuilt lego kit? (well I imagine someone, but the fun of lego is the building)
>how much cups, anon?
Probably too much, my mug holds maybe 2/3's of a 4 cup measuring beaker, and I've had 2 mugs... Oh god, I think I'll just have water the rest of the day.
>oh you actually want to argue about fucking plants doing labor
Well idk at what point does organic activity start to do labor that can count toward the economy? I might be overabstracting (or deabstracting?) but I thought that's worth mentioning.
>>385386
What does it matter that the labor came after the purchase? Nothing of value was created until after the labor.
"Wealth is matter which has been consciously and intelligently transformed from a condition in which it is less to a condition in which it is more serviceable to a human need."
What does it matter that the labor came after the purchase? Nothing of value was created until after the labor.
"Wealth is matter which has been consciously and intelligently transformed from a condition in which it is less to a condition in which it is more serviceable to a human need."
>>385388
>Yeah exactly. Like who would buy a prebuilt lego kit? (well I imagine someone, but the fun of lego is the building)
the statement
>value of X comes from other X
is circular. Where's the beginning?
>Probably too much, my mug holds maybe 2/3's of a 4 cup measuring beaker, and I've had 2 mugs... Oh god, I think I'll just have water the rest of the day.
Anon, how are you still able to post?
>Well idk at what point does organic activity start to do labor that can count toward the economy?
Human / "intelligent creatures" because we're on a pony board because only a mind can do purposeful action
>>385389
>What does it matter that the labor came after the purchase? Nothing of value was created until after the labor.
tree had value because a man desired it, not because someday someone might've cut it down
[Read more] >Yeah exactly. Like who would buy a prebuilt lego kit? (well I imagine someone, but the fun of lego is the building)
the statement
>value of X comes from other X
is circular. Where's the beginning?
>Probably too much, my mug holds maybe 2/3's of a 4 cup measuring beaker, and I've had 2 mugs... Oh god, I think I'll just have water the rest of the day.
Anon, how are you still able to post?
>Well idk at what point does organic activity start to do labor that can count toward the economy?
Human / "intelligent creatures" because we're on a pony board because only a mind can do purposeful action
>>385389
>What does it matter that the labor came after the purchase? Nothing of value was created until after the labor.
tree had value because a man desired it, not because someday someone might've cut it down
>>385388
also yeah
>(well I imagine someone, but the fun of lego is the building)
someone might value prebuilt legos more than normal lego sets because different people have different sets of values
also yeah
>(well I imagine someone, but the fun of lego is the building)
someone might value prebuilt legos more than normal lego sets because different people have different sets of values
>>385399
>Where's the beginning?
Well if I'm going to count the growth of a tree as labor, then that would be whatever conditions created life in the first place. If I don't count that, not sure.
>Anon, how are you still able to post?
I've probably built a tolerance. You could probably use my blood to make a poison dart that gives someone a caffine overdose, especially during college season.
>because only a mind can do purposeful action
That's workable.
>someone might value prebuilt legos more than normal lego sets because different people have different sets of values
Fair, though one could argue the presence of prebuilt figurines set the vibe for them, or that it's good for mental health to be surrounded by art, which in turn is conductive to labor, or any number of things.
I'll keep a notepad with me and when I think of more examples I'll see how they hold up to this line of thought.
[Read more] >Where's the beginning?
Well if I'm going to count the growth of a tree as labor, then that would be whatever conditions created life in the first place. If I don't count that, not sure.
>Anon, how are you still able to post?
I've probably built a tolerance. You could probably use my blood to make a poison dart that gives someone a caffine overdose, especially during college season.
>because only a mind can do purposeful action
That's workable.
>someone might value prebuilt legos more than normal lego sets because different people have different sets of values
Fair, though one could argue the presence of prebuilt figurines set the vibe for them, or that it's good for mental health to be surrounded by art, which in turn is conductive to labor, or any number of things.
I'll keep a notepad with me and when I think of more examples I'll see how they hold up to this line of thought.
>>385399
>tree had value because a man desired it, not because someday someone might've cut it down
But the tree was not made into something man could use simply by desire. Labor processed that tree into value.
>tree had value because a man desired it, not because someday someone might've cut it down
But the tree was not made into something man could use simply by desire. Labor processed that tree into value.
>>385301
>he ceased his citizens' private property to get foreign citizens' private property kek
>property...
Yeah thats a packaged deal with the state. Property rights are off the table when you go against any occupying regime
>he ceased his citizens' private property to get foreign citizens' private property kek
>property...
Yeah thats a packaged deal with the state. Property rights are off the table when you go against any occupying regime
>>385267
>Its up to you to justify why all essential full time 40 hr week jobs dont deserve a family pay
I'm asking provide objective criteria that can define what is essential. Your hypothetical government needs these objective criteria to work in the way you want: Consider how marxists say "each according to his needs", well how would they define needs? Half a bowl of rice is sufficient for a small woman, but not a tall man; determining each individual's real needs is very resource intensive, doing this for everyone in the population is thus very hard. In the case of the marxists they'd waste tremendous resources accurately determining all individuals needs, hence they usually don't bother and go with a one-size-fits-all that makes everyone miserable.
In the modern economy there's a similar problem: What is defined as the poverty threshold is constantly moved by lefitsts. People who we currently define as in poverty today live vastly better lives than people classed as poor in the 1870s. Our definition as constantly moved up the scale as technological innovation has made everyone richer by amplifying human labor.
I point these two cases out to highlight that I see big problems with your idea; you must provide objective critera to determin if a job is "essential" and thus if it's worthy of stealing money from someone else to subsidize it. Otherwise you'll have successive governments making more and more jobs worthy of this subsidy. This is an uphill battle too; corruption and bureaucrats work against you to put more jobs on that list to create waste for themselves.
[Read more] >Its up to you to justify why all essential full time 40 hr week jobs dont deserve a family pay
I'm asking provide objective criteria that can define what is essential. Your hypothetical government needs these objective criteria to work in the way you want: Consider how marxists say "each according to his needs", well how would they define needs? Half a bowl of rice is sufficient for a small woman, but not a tall man; determining each individual's real needs is very resource intensive, doing this for everyone in the population is thus very hard. In the case of the marxists they'd waste tremendous resources accurately determining all individuals needs, hence they usually don't bother and go with a one-size-fits-all that makes everyone miserable.
In the modern economy there's a similar problem: What is defined as the poverty threshold is constantly moved by lefitsts. People who we currently define as in poverty today live vastly better lives than people classed as poor in the 1870s. Our definition as constantly moved up the scale as technological innovation has made everyone richer by amplifying human labor.
I point these two cases out to highlight that I see big problems with your idea; you must provide objective critera to determin if a job is "essential" and thus if it's worthy of stealing money from someone else to subsidize it. Otherwise you'll have successive governments making more and more jobs worthy of this subsidy. This is an uphill battle too; corruption and bureaucrats work against you to put more jobs on that list to create waste for themselves.
>>385267
>Private property without usury is keynesianism?
Nazi Germany didn't have private property. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended articles 115&153 of the Weimar constitution. A charitable interpretation is a German of the time had as much "private" property as a Chinaman today. Even prior to this Nazis ran around politicizing almost all organizations.
>Since the existence of the state relies on taking, it should give back to the people.
That's the least they could do, it'd be even better if it minimized the taking, preferably none at all. Most governments do this to some degree, with the goal of getting people to shut up and go along with taxation. How do you know the Nazi party wasn't acting this way to placate the masses? Most humans in power act corrupt.
>Hitler did with child tax credits, the most effective way for the state to give back.
No, the most effective way to "give back" is to not tax you in the first place. Why do you think the government taking your money, only to give it back to you (after paying themselves for the pleasure) is more effective than you keeping it?
>the government payed off 1/4 of your home mortgage.
Where do you expect this money to come from today? How can you be sure that spending money on relieving mortgages will be a better use than just not taxing whoever you taxed, letting them spend their money how they think best?
>Everything else Hitler did in the economy was basically laissez-faire efficient.
>Nazi logistics
>efficient
The Nazis frequently confiscated entire businesses off their owners, then sold those businesses to members of the Nazi party who would operate them on behalf of the Nazi party. A convoluted (and deliberately obfuscatory tactic) way of saying nationalized. Stealing someone's stuff and giving it to your friends isn't laissez-faire.
[Read more] >Private property without usury is keynesianism?
Nazi Germany didn't have private property. The Reichstag Fire Decree suspended articles 115&153 of the Weimar constitution. A charitable interpretation is a German of the time had as much "private" property as a Chinaman today. Even prior to this Nazis ran around politicizing almost all organizations.
>Since the existence of the state relies on taking, it should give back to the people.
That's the least they could do, it'd be even better if it minimized the taking, preferably none at all. Most governments do this to some degree, with the goal of getting people to shut up and go along with taxation. How do you know the Nazi party wasn't acting this way to placate the masses? Most humans in power act corrupt.
>Hitler did with child tax credits, the most effective way for the state to give back.
No, the most effective way to "give back" is to not tax you in the first place. Why do you think the government taking your money, only to give it back to you (after paying themselves for the pleasure) is more effective than you keeping it?
>the government payed off 1/4 of your home mortgage.
Where do you expect this money to come from today? How can you be sure that spending money on relieving mortgages will be a better use than just not taxing whoever you taxed, letting them spend their money how they think best?
>Everything else Hitler did in the economy was basically laissez-faire efficient.
>Nazi logistics
>efficient
The Nazis frequently confiscated entire businesses off their owners, then sold those businesses to members of the Nazi party who would operate them on behalf of the Nazi party. A convoluted (and deliberately obfuscatory tactic) way of saying nationalized. Stealing someone's stuff and giving it to your friends isn't laissez-faire.
>>385267
>Economic collapse 101:
>banks loans at high interest, bank secretly knows the debt never gets paid off, bank runs out of money, government bails out bank by printing more money.
Ah, but that's not usury alone is it? The whole issue in your example is the government coming to the rescue of some swindlers. It is the government intervention that causes the problem.
Suppose two banks are competing, offering usury services: One offers high rates and is likely to have many defaults; the other offers sensible rates and is likely to have only a few defaults.
Without government intervention, the reckless bank offering high rates collapses as too many defaults happen at once, while the sensible bank lives on.
As you can see, usury was not the downfall of the reckless bank because the sensible bank is alive and well while still committing the act of usury. It's only the governments intervention that causes permits the harmful actions of the reckless bank to continue.
>government bails out bank by printing more money. Money supply increases, increasing inflation and concentration of wealth into the pockets of the rich.
Glad you understand inflation already. I hope you realize that essentially all governments resort to this method of funding it's expenditure.
[Read more] >Economic collapse 101:
>banks loans at high interest, bank secretly knows the debt never gets paid off, bank runs out of money, government bails out bank by printing more money.
Ah, but that's not usury alone is it? The whole issue in your example is the government coming to the rescue of some swindlers. It is the government intervention that causes the problem.
Suppose two banks are competing, offering usury services: One offers high rates and is likely to have many defaults; the other offers sensible rates and is likely to have only a few defaults.
Without government intervention, the reckless bank offering high rates collapses as too many defaults happen at once, while the sensible bank lives on.
As you can see, usury was not the downfall of the reckless bank because the sensible bank is alive and well while still committing the act of usury. It's only the governments intervention that causes permits the harmful actions of the reckless bank to continue.
>government bails out bank by printing more money. Money supply increases, increasing inflation and concentration of wealth into the pockets of the rich.
Glad you understand inflation already. I hope you realize that essentially all governments resort to this method of funding it's expenditure.
>>385267
>Capitalism it its very basic meaning considers capital over labor.
Please explain what you mean by this.
I think it's obvious that real existing assets have more innate value than human labor, as a human can labor away doing anything, but only a select few of those things can provide value. An asset like a hammer might not be useful to you for your task at hand, but at least you can sell it to someone else to get another asset more useful to you.
>Capitalism it its very basic meaning considers capital over labor.
Please explain what you mean by this.
I think it's obvious that real existing assets have more innate value than human labor, as a human can labor away doing anything, but only a select few of those things can provide value. An asset like a hammer might not be useful to you for your task at hand, but at least you can sell it to someone else to get another asset more useful to you.
>>385303
>Subjective desires do not create anything.
Do they not put the value on something in the first place? Someone's subjective opinion of the painting you used your labor to produce is what puts a value (which you can get access to by trading your painting with them) on your painting.
It seems to me that value comes from subjective desire, then flows into an asset which is the store of value. I agree that labor is required to create the asset, but the value is held in the asset, not the labor that made it.
>Subjective desires do not create anything.
Do they not put the value on something in the first place? Someone's subjective opinion of the painting you used your labor to produce is what puts a value (which you can get access to by trading your painting with them) on your painting.
It seems to me that value comes from subjective desire, then flows into an asset which is the store of value. I agree that labor is required to create the asset, but the value is held in the asset, not the labor that made it.
>>385601
>Yeah thats a packaged deal with the state. Property rights are off the table when you go against any occupying regime
By that principle property rights never can exist. This is because the state you pledge fealty to (which are suggesting property rights stem from) itself could be challenged and overthrown by a larger state, again an even bigger state could do the same, larger states all the way down. There is no starting point of property rights by your principle.
If you want a "might makes right" solution to property rights outside of a state, consider mass-ownership of firearms: If most people have access to a strong enough force amplifier, the differences between individual's innate ability to do violence is levelized. What this means is if such a situation is achieved, it becomes very difficult to gain a monopoly (or close enough to one) on violence. Property rights are functionally enforced by the judgment of all individuals in the group. I.e someone tries to squat in your living room, most people will agree with your action of shooting the cunt and will continue interacting with you. But if you were to run around carjacking people, very few members of society would agree with you, and you'd find yourself ostracized.
>Yeah thats a packaged deal with the state. Property rights are off the table when you go against any occupying regime
By that principle property rights never can exist. This is because the state you pledge fealty to (which are suggesting property rights stem from) itself could be challenged and overthrown by a larger state, again an even bigger state could do the same, larger states all the way down. There is no starting point of property rights by your principle.
If you want a "might makes right" solution to property rights outside of a state, consider mass-ownership of firearms: If most people have access to a strong enough force amplifier, the differences between individual's innate ability to do violence is levelized. What this means is if such a situation is achieved, it becomes very difficult to gain a monopoly (or close enough to one) on violence. Property rights are functionally enforced by the judgment of all individuals in the group. I.e someone tries to squat in your living room, most people will agree with your action of shooting the cunt and will continue interacting with you. But if you were to run around carjacking people, very few members of society would agree with you, and you'd find yourself ostracized.
>>386187
Theres no specific criteria necessary. All blue collar work is essential. Plus there are more essential jobs. Theres no excuse for employers to not aim for a family wage for all their employees, if the job is essential.
>>386196
A reinterpretation or change to the constitution isnt anti-private property, youre going to need to elaborate. Gonna need a source on nazi germany "confiscating entire businesses" too.
>>386199
We need to make a distinction between inflation and usury. Youre right, Usury is not inflation, but usury is clearly the biggest cause of it. A little bit of inflation isnt bad especially if we accept fiat money as the standard
>>386202
Freedom to aquire capital can entail the freedom to aquire capital using degeneracy scams. Notice how the boomer neocon inc. are pro-capitalist but not staunch on social issues? They arent going to target pornopgrahpers, they have the freedom of capitalism. Also, many assets would not exist without labor in the first place, its needed to make them
>>386210
The state still serves a purpose other than just taking. Such as military and border security. I dont think the mass ownership of firearms means the state can be done away with. Having home security doesnt protect you because you are not topdog, having the world most powerful military makes you topdog. I prefer to be on the winning side where I survive
[Read more] Theres no specific criteria necessary. All blue collar work is essential. Plus there are more essential jobs. Theres no excuse for employers to not aim for a family wage for all their employees, if the job is essential.
>>386196
A reinterpretation or change to the constitution isnt anti-private property, youre going to need to elaborate. Gonna need a source on nazi germany "confiscating entire businesses" too.
>>386199
We need to make a distinction between inflation and usury. Youre right, Usury is not inflation, but usury is clearly the biggest cause of it. A little bit of inflation isnt bad especially if we accept fiat money as the standard
>>386202
Freedom to aquire capital can entail the freedom to aquire capital using degeneracy scams. Notice how the boomer neocon inc. are pro-capitalist but not staunch on social issues? They arent going to target pornopgrahpers, they have the freedom of capitalism. Also, many assets would not exist without labor in the first place, its needed to make them
>>386210
The state still serves a purpose other than just taking. Such as military and border security. I dont think the mass ownership of firearms means the state can be done away with. Having home security doesnt protect you because you are not topdog, having the world most powerful military makes you topdog. I prefer to be on the winning side where I survive
Personally I'm warm toward libertarianism, they got some compelling ideas on improving capitalism. In practice, though, all I ever see is them navel-gazing and kicking rocks cuz they cannot or will not compromise on shit. Especially on tariffs; they hate tariffs so hard they'll just let the world fuck their ass with them. Yeah, man, trade is so free when you can't sell shit and can only buy, cheap slop at that.
If lolberts get out of their own heads and fucking live in reality maybe it'll actually be an improved economic system.
If lolberts get out of their own heads and fucking live in reality maybe it'll actually be an improved economic system.
>>386237
>Especially on tariffs
because protectionism is a retarded fucking idea that's been an enemy of free trade since 17th century
the reason you can't "sell" is because you can't do shit in US with current regulatory "protections of the working class"
>inb4 slavery in China
>Especially on tariffs
because protectionism is a retarded fucking idea that's been an enemy of free trade since 17th century
the reason you can't "sell" is because you can't do shit in US with current regulatory "protections of the working class"
>inb4 slavery in China
>>386248
>because protectionism is a retarded fucking idea
Not if you want to have jobs in your homeland and develop your industrial base.
Economics 101.
>because protectionism is a retarded fucking idea
Not if you want to have jobs in your homeland and develop your industrial base.
Economics 101.
>>386251
Trade is an act of volunteer action of two parties. Use of coercion is incompatible with proper trade and always results in some form of failure
instead of "moving production to the homeland" businesses will just find a way to get their products labeled as "made in homeland" or use other (legal & illegal) methods to get around regulations
Brazil has laws with stated goal of "forcing the production to move to Brazil". Their result is just a big gray/black market of goods from other countries
Russia has laws with stated goal of "replacing import". Many "Russian" products are just Chinese junk with <5% Russian components that are, legally, make them "Made in Russia".
If you want to move jobs to America, then make it easier to do business. Coercive force doesn't work on the market
Trade is an act of volunteer action of two parties. Use of coercion is incompatible with proper trade and always results in some form of failure
instead of "moving production to the homeland" businesses will just find a way to get their products labeled as "made in homeland" or use other (legal & illegal) methods to get around regulations
Brazil has laws with stated goal of "forcing the production to move to Brazil". Their result is just a big gray/black market of goods from other countries
Russia has laws with stated goal of "replacing import". Many "Russian" products are just Chinese junk with <5% Russian components that are, legally, make them "Made in Russia".
If you want to move jobs to America, then make it easier to do business. Coercive force doesn't work on the market
>>386237
The main problem that I've always had with libertarianism is that to get to the libertarian idealist's end-game, you have to do a lot highly unlibertarian things. Every possible pure libertarian path you could take from where we are today would be subverted long before it would pay off. Most of the people still pushing libertarianism refuse to accept this.
The main problem that I've always had with libertarianism is that to get to the libertarian idealist's end-game, you have to do a lot highly unlibertarian things. Every possible pure libertarian path you could take from where we are today would be subverted long before it would pay off. Most of the people still pushing libertarianism refuse to accept this.
>>386252
>Trade is an act of volunteer action of two parties.
Sure, but here is the catch to protect the domestic economy, the free trade only applies inside your homeland's border.
>Trade is an act of volunteer action of two parties.
Sure, but here is the catch to protect the domestic economy, the free trade only applies inside your homeland's border.
>>386253
there are "not pure"/conservative libertarian ideologies like paleo-libertarianism which are fine by most standards
there are retarded ideologies that believe that dictatorship that take "physical removal" as a call for violence is a right path to liberty
ends don't justify the means
>>386254
how exactly are you going to protect the domestic economy when it's easier to just cheaper/easier to get around protectionistic policies?
there are "not pure"/conservative libertarian ideologies like paleo-libertarianism which are fine by most standards
there are retarded ideologies that believe that dictatorship that take "physical removal" as a call for violence is a right path to liberty
ends don't justify the means
>>386254
how exactly are you going to protect the domestic economy when it's easier to just cheaper/easier to get around protectionistic policies?
>>386255
>when it's easier to just cheaper/easier
*when it's easier/cheaper
I should probably be more thoughtful on a slow-ish board
>when it's easier to just cheaper/easier
*when it's easier/cheaper
I should probably be more thoughtful on a slow-ish board
>>386237
From my memories of watching ancap youtube videos in highschool, they end up just immanently critiquing it themselves--as in refuting their own point on it's own terms--because the ancapistan they envisioned was literally just feudal monarchy but with bitcoin.
Like the same rantsona pngtubers that got me into ancap ended up snapping me out of it.
From my memories of watching ancap youtube videos in highschool, they end up just immanently critiquing it themselves--as in refuting their own point on it's own terms--because the ancapistan they envisioned was literally just feudal monarchy but with bitcoin.
Like the same rantsona pngtubers that got me into ancap ended up snapping me out of it.
>>386260
>feudal monarchy but with bitcoin
the only problem I see here is the use of bitcoin
anarchy > monarchy > democracy
>feudal monarchy but with bitcoin
the only problem I see here is the use of bitcoin
anarchy > monarchy > democracy
>>386255
>how exactly are you going to protect the domestic economy when it's easier to just cheaper/easier to get around protectionistic policies?
Allow me to give you a hint how it works by mentioning the case of Argentina.
Argentina is a country of 40 millions and has just one steel factory and just one aluminum factory, there is not size market to have more, so both factories have a monopoly on the internal market, the government consider them "strategic" industries and protects them by any means necessary, but, it allows a flow of 15 to 20% of finished imported steel and aluminum to set a mark over international quality and price for the domestic market. So the local industry cannot begin to produce garbage or expensive goods.
>how exactly are you going to protect the domestic economy when it's easier to just cheaper/easier to get around protectionistic policies?
Allow me to give you a hint how it works by mentioning the case of Argentina.
Argentina is a country of 40 millions and has just one steel factory and just one aluminum factory, there is not size market to have more, so both factories have a monopoly on the internal market, the government consider them "strategic" industries and protects them by any means necessary, but, it allows a flow of 15 to 20% of finished imported steel and aluminum to set a mark over international quality and price for the domestic market. So the local industry cannot begin to produce garbage or expensive goods.
>>386262
Well my impression was that feudalism evolves out of itself into capitalism, but I should actually read up on that.
Also I'm talking about economic systems, not governance. the -archys are on a seperate axis from the economic system, though they do interact with eachother.
Well my impression was that feudalism evolves out of itself into capitalism, but I should actually read up on that.
Also I'm talking about economic systems, not governance. the -archys are on a seperate axis from the economic system, though they do interact with eachother.
>>386235
>Theres no specific criteria necessary. All blue collar work is essential.
Latishqa turns up with her job at a beautician painting nails, she wants her job subsidized with tax money. Do you subsidize her?
Now suppose instead of personally making that decision, you've got to delegate the task to an underling so you can go about expanding the 5th Reich. What criteria do you provide your underling with to allow them to assess essentiality of the subsidy applicant's job?
>Theres no excuse for employers to not aim for a family wage
There's no reason to pay anyone anything more than what they say yes to. In a free market, if you are important in your role, you will be payed lots.
Even if the task your job carries out is important, if there's lots of people that can do it, you don't carry that importance; because lots of people can do it.
>Theres no specific criteria necessary. All blue collar work is essential.
Latishqa turns up with her job at a beautician painting nails, she wants her job subsidized with tax money. Do you subsidize her?
Now suppose instead of personally making that decision, you've got to delegate the task to an underling so you can go about expanding the 5th Reich. What criteria do you provide your underling with to allow them to assess essentiality of the subsidy applicant's job?
>Theres no excuse for employers to not aim for a family wage
There's no reason to pay anyone anything more than what they say yes to. In a free market, if you are important in your role, you will be payed lots.
Even if the task your job carries out is important, if there's lots of people that can do it, you don't carry that importance; because lots of people can do it.
>>386265
I didn't know.
But if a remember well the State has a percentage in the companies' stocks, but most are private.
I didn't know.
But if a remember well the State has a percentage in the companies' stocks, but most are private.
>>386255
Depends on how the midterms play out, only then can there be any direct messing with the worker class (the actual important fuckers). Everyone's vaguely aware that the American worker is a tad spoiled, but to take any part of that away is beyond taboo, even more than felting Wall Street jews.
What can be done right now is dealing with foreign bullshit. If things are good after two years, then deal with retarded niggerfaggot workers. We can only wait for that day, and brace.
Depends on how the midterms play out, only then can there be any direct messing with the worker class (the actual important fuckers). Everyone's vaguely aware that the American worker is a tad spoiled, but to take any part of that away is beyond taboo, even more than felting Wall Street jews.
What can be done right now is dealing with foreign bullshit. If things are good after two years, then deal with retarded niggerfaggot workers. We can only wait for that day, and brace.
>>386264
>Well my impression was that feudalism evolves out of itself into capitalism, but I should actually read up on that.
it does because slavery doesn't really help the economy
people often say that >monarchy = feudalism so I assumed you had the same idea
>Also I'm talking about economic systems, not governance
the existence of a state is a economic intrusion into the economy, as the state is a monopoly on violence
>Well my impression was that feudalism evolves out of itself into capitalism, but I should actually read up on that.
it does because slavery doesn't really help the economy
people often say that >monarchy = feudalism so I assumed you had the same idea
>Also I'm talking about economic systems, not governance
the existence of a state is a economic intrusion into the economy, as the state is a monopoly on violence
>>386268
about 10% iirc
they sold their shit because state "helped" them with tax pesos, removing all incentive to develop their production
>>386269
>Depends on how the midterms play out, only then can there be any direct messing with the worker class (the actual important fuckers). Everyone's vaguely aware that the American worker is a tad spoiled, but to take any part of that away is beyond taboo, even more than felting Wall Street jews.
Thanks, democracy!
about 10% iirc
they sold their shit because state "helped" them with tax pesos, removing all incentive to develop their production
>>386269
>Depends on how the midterms play out, only then can there be any direct messing with the worker class (the actual important fuckers). Everyone's vaguely aware that the American worker is a tad spoiled, but to take any part of that away is beyond taboo, even more than felting Wall Street jews.
Thanks, democracy!
>>386273
>they sold their shit because state "helped" them with tax pesos
oh yeah, I forgot to mention that "they" and the state are/were the same entity
>they sold their shit because state "helped" them with tax pesos
oh yeah, I forgot to mention that "they" and the state are/were the same entity
>>386267
Laquisha isnt doing blue collar work.
Part of living in a industrial society is that some people own factories, and others need to work in them. People will do work because they need to eat, they will take anything for work. Does this mean they are consenting to mediocre wages after having a good work history/record? Who cares, the bosses ought to give a shit, and workers shouldnt have to rely on transfering jobs. Thats assuming if the option is even there
Laquisha isnt doing blue collar work.
Part of living in a industrial society is that some people own factories, and others need to work in them. People will do work because they need to eat, they will take anything for work. Does this mean they are consenting to mediocre wages after having a good work history/record? Who cares, the bosses ought to give a shit, and workers shouldnt have to rely on transfering jobs. Thats assuming if the option is even there
>>386275
The issue domestically is the fact that the government forces various privileges that companies must give to workers, so they don't get exploited and such and such. It snowballed heavily when the government (democrats) realized they don't have to prioritize manufacturing cuz it's overseas and everyone having tariffs except us means no one's buying our goods anyway, so heaping free stuff to the basically useless workers became the perfect tool to buy their vote.
It also ensured that any opposition who knows how unsustainable this practice is can't change shit cuz workers are mindless as long as you give them free shit. After a whole century of this downward spiral, I guess the workers stopped receiving new free shit.
Boy, I will fucking hate the year 2027. To truly complete the fix some of that free shit has to be taken back, and workers are very unaware people.
The issue domestically is the fact that the government forces various privileges that companies must give to workers, so they don't get exploited and such and such. It snowballed heavily when the government (democrats) realized they don't have to prioritize manufacturing cuz it's overseas and everyone having tariffs except us means no one's buying our goods anyway, so heaping free stuff to the basically useless workers became the perfect tool to buy their vote.
It also ensured that any opposition who knows how unsustainable this practice is can't change shit cuz workers are mindless as long as you give them free shit. After a whole century of this downward spiral, I guess the workers stopped receiving new free shit.
Boy, I will fucking hate the year 2027. To truly complete the fix some of that free shit has to be taken back, and workers are very unaware people.
>>386273
>they sold their shit because state "helped" them with tax pesos, removing all incentive to develop their production
Those industries are indeed strategic and the Argentinian State getting rid of stocks is a very bad sign that opens the door to "foreign" investors. The pattern is already known, (((foreigners))) buy the company then immediately begin to liquidated the assets under the label of "restructuring", all which is actually a process for eliminating a company competitor.
>they sold their shit because state "helped" them with tax pesos, removing all incentive to develop their production
Those industries are indeed strategic and the Argentinian State getting rid of stocks is a very bad sign that opens the door to "foreign" investors. The pattern is already known, (((foreigners))) buy the company then immediately begin to liquidated the assets under the label of "restructuring", all which is actually a process for eliminating a company competitor.
>>386271
Woah there's inline green texting? When was that added? (I was here around when /mlpol/ launched but left until recently, a lot of stuff here is new to me.)
Woah there's inline green texting? When was that added? (I was here around when /mlpol/ launched but left until recently, a lot of stuff here is new to me.)
>>386294
>you can't just privatize an ineffective state monopoly that relied on tax money of others! It is strategic for our nation!
Yup. Correct. The path that will follow a country referring its industrialization is driven by a real "Stateman" or a puppet (((president))).
>you can't just privatize an ineffective state monopoly that relied on tax money of others! It is strategic for our nation!
Yup. Correct. The path that will follow a country referring its industrialization is driven by a real "Stateman" or a puppet (((president))).
>>386235
>A reinterpretation or change to the constitution isnt anti-private property
115) The dwelling of every German is his sanctuary and is inviolable. Exceptions may be imposed only by authority of law.
153)
The right of private property is guaranteed by the Constitution. Expropriation of property may
only take place [. . .] It shall be accompanied by payment of just compensation [. . .] by due process of law. [. . .]
By suspending 115, the Nazis no longer needed to make up some bullshit, give it to judge to sign off on (authority of law), then bash your door down.
By suspending 153, the Nazis again don’t need to come up with a fake reason to fuck with you, even worse, they get to take your shit without obligation for compensation. I wonder if we can see evidence where the Nazis might be abusing the suspension of article 153, taking people’s without compensation...
>Gonna need a source on nazi germany "confiscating entire businesses" too.
"Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany" by Germa Bel.
https://sci-hub.st/https://www.jstor.org/stable/27771569
Page 47
"As Wengenroth explains, 'uncooperative industrialists such as the aircraft manufacturer Hugo Junkers were removed from positions and replaced with Nazi governors"
"The Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann in 1939. Read first couple of pages of Chapter 2.
https://cdn.mises.org/the_vampire_economy_20201022.pdf
[Read more] >A reinterpretation or change to the constitution isnt anti-private property
115) The dwelling of every German is his sanctuary and is inviolable. Exceptions may be imposed only by authority of law.
153)
The right of private property is guaranteed by the Constitution. Expropriation of property may
only take place [. . .] It shall be accompanied by payment of just compensation [. . .] by due process of law. [. . .]
By suspending 115, the Nazis no longer needed to make up some bullshit, give it to judge to sign off on (authority of law), then bash your door down.
By suspending 153, the Nazis again don’t need to come up with a fake reason to fuck with you, even worse, they get to take your shit without obligation for compensation. I wonder if we can see evidence where the Nazis might be abusing the suspension of article 153, taking people’s without compensation...
>Gonna need a source on nazi germany "confiscating entire businesses" too.
"Against the mainstream: Nazi privatization in 1930s Germany" by Germa Bel.
https://sci-hub.st/https://www.jstor.org/stable/27771569
Page 47
"As Wengenroth explains, 'uncooperative industrialists such as the aircraft manufacturer Hugo Junkers were removed from positions and replaced with Nazi governors"
"The Vampire Economy" by Günter Reimann in 1939. Read first couple of pages of Chapter 2.
https://cdn.mises.org/the_vampire_economy_20201022.pdf
>>386235
>but usury is clearly the biggest cause of [inflation].
No, that would be healthcare & welfare.
>A little bit of inflation isnt bad
I think it is. Inflation means saving is disincentivized. This means instead of a business saving up money for a project, it uses debt. This in turn means the entire economy is geared to wards vastly more risk; a miscalculation financed with savings means you loose time. A miscalculation financed with debt means you business collapses.
>but usury is clearly the biggest cause of [inflation].
No, that would be healthcare & welfare.
>A little bit of inflation isnt bad
I think it is. Inflation means saving is disincentivized. This means instead of a business saving up money for a project, it uses debt. This in turn means the entire economy is geared to wards vastly more risk; a miscalculation financed with savings means you loose time. A miscalculation financed with debt means you business collapses.
>>386302
Im not really a constitutionalist.
>see, Hitler gave the grounds to sieze peoples property!
Because Germany had a jew and communist problem. Seizing their property and possesions was necessary to bring Germany back in good health. If they can easily change the constitution it means the people or individuals never had a stake in constitutional rights to begin with
>uncooperative industrialists
Yeah that can be a problem, especially when mobilizing war efforts. All in all, I dont see how any of this is a good argument for nazi germany being "anti private property". Its not like he has a marxist take on property, it was far from it
Im not really a constitutionalist.
>see, Hitler gave the grounds to sieze peoples property!
Because Germany had a jew and communist problem. Seizing their property and possesions was necessary to bring Germany back in good health. If they can easily change the constitution it means the people or individuals never had a stake in constitutional rights to begin with
>uncooperative industrialists
Yeah that can be a problem, especially when mobilizing war efforts. All in all, I dont see how any of this is a good argument for nazi germany being "anti private property". Its not like he has a marxist take on property, it was far from it
>>386303
Fair enough. I dont think inflation is inherent to healthcare and welfare, but it is inherent to usury
In order to have zero inflation we would abolish money, so thats off the table. Commodities or shiny rocks simply cant replace it
Fair enough. I dont think inflation is inherent to healthcare and welfare, but it is inherent to usury
In order to have zero inflation we would abolish money, so thats off the table. Commodities or shiny rocks simply cant replace it
>>386303
>No, that would be healthcare & welfare.
Paid for using bonds (usury), and federal reserve notes (usury)
Private health insurance in the US doesn't impose significant incentives to reduce cost in US hospitals ($20 asprin pill in the hospital), which drives up costs, which inevitably get paid for by bonds and federal reserve notes.
Insurance also causes inflation by reducing investor risk, which allows more investors to take riskier bets, then get bought back by the federal reserve (usury).
The purpose of money or currency is to ease the flow of trade.
The total supply of a currency should match what is necessary for it's given population to live according to their standard of living.
The value of a unit of currency must be stable over Hundreds of years, because that unit of currency represents a fraction of the population's lifespan.
The total supply of a currency must increase as the population grows.
The total supply of a currency must decrease as the population shrinks.
Banning private banking, usury, and fractional reserves are one way of limiting inflation.
Taxing hording and speculation are other ways.
Limiting who uses the currency (domestic citizens only) is another way, because you limit the population the currency services.
Ideally you would do all of the above, then tax sins (private drinking, drugs, prostitution, pornography, imported goods, multiple houses or estates, excessive property ownership, rentals, leased things) because people won't stop doing those things, but the taxes discourage them and give a reasonable method to extract excess currency from circulation.
As a population shrinks, wealth becomes concentrated.
Those people are more likely to spend their money on luxury goods, whores, and real estate which would all get taxed.
Sheltering their wealth in industry would result in higher wages, assuming the government eliminated immigration, which would cause baby booms, which would allow more printing.
[Read more] >No, that would be healthcare & welfare.
Paid for using bonds (usury), and federal reserve notes (usury)
Private health insurance in the US doesn't impose significant incentives to reduce cost in US hospitals ($20 asprin pill in the hospital), which drives up costs, which inevitably get paid for by bonds and federal reserve notes.
Insurance also causes inflation by reducing investor risk, which allows more investors to take riskier bets, then get bought back by the federal reserve (usury).
The purpose of money or currency is to ease the flow of trade.
The total supply of a currency should match what is necessary for it's given population to live according to their standard of living.
The value of a unit of currency must be stable over Hundreds of years, because that unit of currency represents a fraction of the population's lifespan.
The total supply of a currency must increase as the population grows.
The total supply of a currency must decrease as the population shrinks.
Banning private banking, usury, and fractional reserves are one way of limiting inflation.
Taxing hording and speculation are other ways.
Limiting who uses the currency (domestic citizens only) is another way, because you limit the population the currency services.
Ideally you would do all of the above, then tax sins (private drinking, drugs, prostitution, pornography, imported goods, multiple houses or estates, excessive property ownership, rentals, leased things) because people won't stop doing those things, but the taxes discourage them and give a reasonable method to extract excess currency from circulation.
As a population shrinks, wealth becomes concentrated.
Those people are more likely to spend their money on luxury goods, whores, and real estate which would all get taxed.
Sheltering their wealth in industry would result in higher wages, assuming the government eliminated immigration, which would cause baby booms, which would allow more printing.
>>386306
I wonder if bartering is even immune to inflation or if it's just easier to spot with money.
I wonder if bartering is even immune to inflation or if it's just easier to spot with money.
>>386315
Assuming there isn't significant advancements in automation methods, or shift to using slave labor, the man-hour cost of a hand crafted handbag made by a skilled Italian craftsman is going to be the same today as it was 40 years ago.
This means that the value of the handbag is stable in bartering conditions, whereas the value of the currency becomes apparent.
The same can be said about organic vine ripened heirloom tomatoes.
Assuming there isn't significant advancements in automation methods, or shift to using slave labor, the man-hour cost of a hand crafted handbag made by a skilled Italian craftsman is going to be the same today as it was 40 years ago.
This means that the value of the handbag is stable in bartering conditions, whereas the value of the currency becomes apparent.
The same can be said about organic vine ripened heirloom tomatoes.
>>386235
>Freedom to aquire capital can entail the freedom to aquire capital using degeneracy scams.
That sounds like you're saying "freedom allows people the freedom to do bad things", is this what you mean? So we ban guns, then knives, then sticks, finally pre-emptively lock everyone in a padded cell in case they do bad things like the UK?
Even if we go with such an absurd policy, then the amoral issue crops up of "how do we ensure those in government are incorruptible benevolent dictators?", such a system would be very easy to corrupt, which I think is obvious.
>boomer neocon inc. are pro-capitalist
I don't agree, they're quite happy with the huge regulatory states we have across the west that strangle innovation and industry. I think the "boomers" are just used to their socalist-lite upbringing.
>many assets would not exist without labor in the first place
And the men that produced labor would not have been fed or paid if someone else didn't want that assets made at the end of it.
>The state still serves a purpose other than just taking. Such as military and border security.
I'm not understanding these two sentences correctly. Are the military and border security examples of purposes other than taking stuff? If so, how can the state have a purpose in "just taking"? Isn't just taking stuff what criminals and thieves do? If a state was only just taking, it'd be identical to a criminal gang.
As for the state's purpose being those examples of military and border security, I believe it is possible for those examples to be supplanted by mass ownership of firearms for the reason I eluded to in my prior post.
>I dont think the mass ownership of firearms means the state can be done away with.
Fair enough, but can you see the possibility that a new force amplifier could be invented with particular characteristics like ease of use, logistical simplicity, high force amplification, would make it very hard for a minority to gain a monopoly on violence? Basically following a similar line to nuclear M.A.D principles.
>Having home security doesnt protect you
It's more game-theory. There are limits and conditions to meet I concede, but mass gun ownership could replace the job of police and military systems.
On the small criminal scale, mass gun ownership protects by this:
If your a crim, you know the likelihood of your would-be victim being armed is high. You know your chance of getting in a gunfight is moderate (say more than 10%). A gunfight has a high chance of you getting killed. Thus you predict your chance of dying when carrying out a crime is at least in the single digits of percent.
From that you conclude that a life of crime where you must carry out multiple crimes a year would leave you with an almost certain chance of getting shot. Thus very few people (compared to today) would carry out crime.
On the large nation scale, mass gun ownership protects by this:
If you’re a country with a government hungrily eyeing up Ancapistan, your army faces a problem; if it takes over some patch of land, it won’t be able to extract resources from it without fighting the locals. At first there’s two paths around this problem;
You could attempt door-to-door confiscation. This works when the victimized population is much smaller than your army, you can spend lots of soldiers who get shot by the family members of the home they’re raiding. Perhaps you only loose a soldier every other house.This method isn’t practical at the country scale because you’d need the biggest army the earth’s ever seen. This is complicated by the need of all your soldiers to be psychopaths who are happy to personally murder entire families. Also will take a very long time confiscating the entire country’s guns like this.
The second option is to carpet bomb the country. Kill and destroy everyone and anything that could be used to hide under and snipe your supply lines from. This method costs lots of money because carpeting a country in an a few acre-feet of TNT isn’t cheap. It also depletes your country’s military stockpiles which you need to defend your own country from other nations. A major problem with carpet bombing a country is you’ve necessarily wiped out anything of value that you could’ve otherwise stolen or enslaved, leaving you with a limited number of reasons to invade in the first place. This is all compounded by the fact you just genocided a country showcasing willing to go to use such awe-inspiring means to gain such minuscule ends; indicating you’re not someone who’s going to be good at negotiations.
The outcome of this: Either path requires stupidly large resources. The first only works if you’re Italy trying to fight the Vatican city. The second requires the entire government to be unilaterally insane genocide maniacs, something that’s so unlikely as to be discarded.
The conclusion is that IF (the hard part) you could get society to the point where mass ownership of firearms was morally acceptable and implemented, society would have reached a stable minimum.
Love 6000 char limit.
[Read more] >Freedom to aquire capital can entail the freedom to aquire capital using degeneracy scams.
That sounds like you're saying "freedom allows people the freedom to do bad things", is this what you mean? So we ban guns, then knives, then sticks, finally pre-emptively lock everyone in a padded cell in case they do bad things like the UK?
Even if we go with such an absurd policy, then the amoral issue crops up of "how do we ensure those in government are incorruptible benevolent dictators?", such a system would be very easy to corrupt, which I think is obvious.
>boomer neocon inc. are pro-capitalist
I don't agree, they're quite happy with the huge regulatory states we have across the west that strangle innovation and industry. I think the "boomers" are just used to their socalist-lite upbringing.
>many assets would not exist without labor in the first place
And the men that produced labor would not have been fed or paid if someone else didn't want that assets made at the end of it.
>The state still serves a purpose other than just taking. Such as military and border security.
I'm not understanding these two sentences correctly. Are the military and border security examples of purposes other than taking stuff? If so, how can the state have a purpose in "just taking"? Isn't just taking stuff what criminals and thieves do? If a state was only just taking, it'd be identical to a criminal gang.
As for the state's purpose being those examples of military and border security, I believe it is possible for those examples to be supplanted by mass ownership of firearms for the reason I eluded to in my prior post.
>I dont think the mass ownership of firearms means the state can be done away with.
Fair enough, but can you see the possibility that a new force amplifier could be invented with particular characteristics like ease of use, logistical simplicity, high force amplification, would make it very hard for a minority to gain a monopoly on violence? Basically following a similar line to nuclear M.A.D principles.
>Having home security doesnt protect you
It's more game-theory. There are limits and conditions to meet I concede, but mass gun ownership could replace the job of police and military systems.
On the small criminal scale, mass gun ownership protects by this:
If your a crim, you know the likelihood of your would-be victim being armed is high. You know your chance of getting in a gunfight is moderate (say more than 10%). A gunfight has a high chance of you getting killed. Thus you predict your chance of dying when carrying out a crime is at least in the single digits of percent.
From that you conclude that a life of crime where you must carry out multiple crimes a year would leave you with an almost certain chance of getting shot. Thus very few people (compared to today) would carry out crime.
On the large nation scale, mass gun ownership protects by this:
If you’re a country with a government hungrily eyeing up Ancapistan, your army faces a problem; if it takes over some patch of land, it won’t be able to extract resources from it without fighting the locals. At first there’s two paths around this problem;
You could attempt door-to-door confiscation. This works when the victimized population is much smaller than your army, you can spend lots of soldiers who get shot by the family members of the home they’re raiding. Perhaps you only loose a soldier every other house.This method isn’t practical at the country scale because you’d need the biggest army the earth’s ever seen. This is complicated by the need of all your soldiers to be psychopaths who are happy to personally murder entire families. Also will take a very long time confiscating the entire country’s guns like this.
The second option is to carpet bomb the country. Kill and destroy everyone and anything that could be used to hide under and snipe your supply lines from. This method costs lots of money because carpeting a country in an a few acre-feet of TNT isn’t cheap. It also depletes your country’s military stockpiles which you need to defend your own country from other nations. A major problem with carpet bombing a country is you’ve necessarily wiped out anything of value that you could’ve otherwise stolen or enslaved, leaving you with a limited number of reasons to invade in the first place. This is all compounded by the fact you just genocided a country showcasing willing to go to use such awe-inspiring means to gain such minuscule ends; indicating you’re not someone who’s going to be good at negotiations.
The outcome of this: Either path requires stupidly large resources. The first only works if you’re Italy trying to fight the Vatican city. The second requires the entire government to be unilaterally insane genocide maniacs, something that’s so unlikely as to be discarded.
The conclusion is that IF (the hard part) you could get society to the point where mass ownership of firearms was morally acceptable and implemented, society would have reached a stable minimum.
Love 6000 char limit.
>>386248
>protectionism is a retarded fucking idea that's been an enemy of free trade
I agree, but I think society is regressing due to dysgenics, so things are degenerating to the point that this is a decent option. 40% of the economy going into taxation is clearly madness. For the USA, at least tarrifs could shoulder that tax burden away from the homeland, allowing the economy to try and outgrow the deficit enough to prevent a debt-spiral of interest payments outgrowing taxes. I highly doubt the governments following Trump will do what's needed though. Natural selection dictates they won't.
>protectionism is a retarded fucking idea that's been an enemy of free trade
I agree, but I think society is regressing due to dysgenics, so things are degenerating to the point that this is a decent option. 40% of the economy going into taxation is clearly madness. For the USA, at least tarrifs could shoulder that tax burden away from the homeland, allowing the economy to try and outgrow the deficit enough to prevent a debt-spiral of interest payments outgrowing taxes. I highly doubt the governments following Trump will do what's needed though. Natural selection dictates they won't.
>>386315
inflation requires increase of supply without an parallel increase in demand
>with fiat currency printer goes brrr
>with real currency inflation happens when one finds an undeveloped land with gold beneath it
>with barter inflation happens when one find extremely fertile land for crops
inflation requires increase of supply without an parallel increase in demand
>with fiat currency printer goes brrr
>with real currency inflation happens when one finds an undeveloped land with gold beneath it
>with barter inflation happens when one find extremely fertile land for crops
>>386324
>I agree, but I think society is regressing due to dysgenics, so things are degenerating to the point that this is a decent option
>the west is falling so we might as well fall quicker
the best way to shrink the tax burden is to cut taxes (duh)
deficits should be solved by cutting spending (incl. oh-so-precious gibs)
>I agree, but I think society is regressing due to dysgenics, so things are degenerating to the point that this is a decent option
>the west is falling so we might as well fall quicker
the best way to shrink the tax burden is to cut taxes (duh)
deficits should be solved by cutting spending (incl. oh-so-precious gibs)
>>386275
>Laquisha isnt doing blue collar work.
That's great, but what happens when you die? How will your government know if someone's job is blue collar when your not there to tell them? Without consulting the oracle (YOU), it's stuck.
>some people own factories, and others need to work in them.
Or the price of that labor increases to the point someone goes to the effort of inventing a robot.
>People will do work because they need to eat, they will take anything for work.
Don't flood the country with cheap migrants while enforcing regulations that devastate industry and innovation then.
>Does this mean they are consenting to mediocre wages
Their wages are determined by what they agree to.
If your thesis is people will work for nothing, why do we see any variation in wages at all?
>Who cares, the bosses ought to give a shit
Nothing besides the market forces them to care. Why do you, knowing that the members of a government come from the same population which bosses are derived, believe that the people in government will give more of a shit than the bosses will? There's far less selection pressure pushing people in government to give more shits than in private industry.
[Read more] >Laquisha isnt doing blue collar work.
That's great, but what happens when you die? How will your government know if someone's job is blue collar when your not there to tell them? Without consulting the oracle (YOU), it's stuck.
>some people own factories, and others need to work in them.
Or the price of that labor increases to the point someone goes to the effort of inventing a robot.
>People will do work because they need to eat, they will take anything for work.
Don't flood the country with cheap migrants while enforcing regulations that devastate industry and innovation then.
>Does this mean they are consenting to mediocre wages
Their wages are determined by what they agree to.
If your thesis is people will work for nothing, why do we see any variation in wages at all?
>Who cares, the bosses ought to give a shit
Nothing besides the market forces them to care. Why do you, knowing that the members of a government come from the same population which bosses are derived, believe that the people in government will give more of a shit than the bosses will? There's far less selection pressure pushing people in government to give more shits than in private industry.
>>386305
>Because Germany had a jew and communist problem.
Why do you believe the government has both perfect target identification, and is populated by incorruptible benevolent saints? Your attitude is towards a common man entering government is analogous to a leftist's towards a cannibal from the Congo becoming an upstanding Irish national; magic soil.
>If they can easily change the constitution it means the people or individuals never had a stake in constitutional rights to begin with
Sorry, but that's how the overwhelming majority have always treated politics (for natural logical reasons). People spend about 2 minutes deciding who to vote for; another reason among many for why the size of government should be infinitesimal.
>I dont see how any of this is a good argument for nazi germany being "anti private property".
Ok.
>Because Germany had a jew and communist problem.
Why do you believe the government has both perfect target identification, and is populated by incorruptible benevolent saints? Your attitude is towards a common man entering government is analogous to a leftist's towards a cannibal from the Congo becoming an upstanding Irish national; magic soil.
>If they can easily change the constitution it means the people or individuals never had a stake in constitutional rights to begin with
Sorry, but that's how the overwhelming majority have always treated politics (for natural logical reasons). People spend about 2 minutes deciding who to vote for; another reason among many for why the size of government should be infinitesimal.
>I dont see how any of this is a good argument for nazi germany being "anti private property".
Ok.
>>386306
>I dont think inflation is inherent to healthcare and welfare
Nor do I. I'm highlighting that your prior statement from #386235 that:
>"Usury is not inflation, but usury is clearly the biggest cause of it."
is wrong.
>but it is inherent to usury
You’re contradicting yourself. You’ve said in #385267 that a reckless bank makes bad loans and goes bankrupt, then the government decides to print money -causing inflation- to bail out the reckless bank out ad infinitum:
>bank secretly knows the debt never gets paid off, bank runs out of money, government bails out bank by printing more money.
You’ve literally told inflation is not inherent to usury; the government decides to print money.
>In order to have zero inflation we would abolish money
Lol’d. Inflation occurs because the supply of money is increased. Contrary to your absurd belief, you can in fact, simultaneously have money, and choose not to print more of it. Bonkers.
>Commodities or shiny rocks simply cant replace it
They can’t replace fiat’s ability to allow the printer access to the fruits of inflationary taxation. You can’t print gold for vastly less than anyone can mine it, but you can print money and buy assets at it’s current nominal value.
[Read more] >I dont think inflation is inherent to healthcare and welfare
Nor do I. I'm highlighting that your prior statement from #386235 that:
>"Usury is not inflation, but usury is clearly the biggest cause of it."
is wrong.
>but it is inherent to usury
You’re contradicting yourself. You’ve said in #385267 that a reckless bank makes bad loans and goes bankrupt, then the government decides to print money -causing inflation- to bail out the reckless bank out ad infinitum:
>bank secretly knows the debt never gets paid off, bank runs out of money, government bails out bank by printing more money.
You’ve literally told inflation is not inherent to usury; the government decides to print money.
>In order to have zero inflation we would abolish money
Lol’d. Inflation occurs because the supply of money is increased. Contrary to your absurd belief, you can in fact, simultaneously have money, and choose not to print more of it. Bonkers.
>Commodities or shiny rocks simply cant replace it
They can’t replace fiat’s ability to allow the printer access to the fruits of inflationary taxation. You can’t print gold for vastly less than anyone can mine it, but you can print money and buy assets at it’s current nominal value.
>>386313
>Paid for using bonds (usury), and federal reserve notes (usury)
Because there's a massive imbalance between taxes raised and government spending.
If we switched off usury, instead of the US government going into debt, it would've simply collapsed decades ago the moment it's savings and assets were sold off to fund the deficit.
>Private health insurance in the US doesn't impose significant incentives to reduce cost in US hospitals ($20 asprin pill in the hospital)
Might have something to do with the 1.7 trillion dollars the US government spends on healthcare (more than any nation on earth). The government's tremendous interference through regulations, subsidy and taxes has distorted the market. This should be obvious.
The issue here is government interference, not usury.
>Insurance also causes inflation by reducing investor risk
Remove the government mandate for insurance. Also this isn't usury.
> then get bought back by the federal reserve (usury).
Again the government CHOOSES TO INTERFERE with the market. It could just as easily use taxes to fund this interference, in fact 5 trillion out of the 7 trillion dollars that the government uses to interfere, are from taxes, not usury.
>The purpose of money [. . .] as the population shrinks.
I don't see why this is so. The dollars in existence doesn't need to fluctuate in response to the population size. What you're talking about is the divisibility of a currency. Increasing the quantity of a money is a very crude way to increase it's divisibility.
>Banning private banking, usury, and fractional reserves are one way of limiting inflation.
Taxing hording and speculation are other ways.
Limiting who uses the currency (domestic citizens only) is another way, because you limit the population the currency services.
Could just stop printing money.
>Ideally you would do all of the above, then [. . .]
What if you just reduced government spending? Ah, but that'd be giving up your control over other people, can't do that then can you?
[Read more] >Paid for using bonds (usury), and federal reserve notes (usury)
Because there's a massive imbalance between taxes raised and government spending.
If we switched off usury, instead of the US government going into debt, it would've simply collapsed decades ago the moment it's savings and assets were sold off to fund the deficit.
>Private health insurance in the US doesn't impose significant incentives to reduce cost in US hospitals ($20 asprin pill in the hospital)
Might have something to do with the 1.7 trillion dollars the US government spends on healthcare (more than any nation on earth). The government's tremendous interference through regulations, subsidy and taxes has distorted the market. This should be obvious.
The issue here is government interference, not usury.
>Insurance also causes inflation by reducing investor risk
Remove the government mandate for insurance. Also this isn't usury.
> then get bought back by the federal reserve (usury).
Again the government CHOOSES TO INTERFERE with the market. It could just as easily use taxes to fund this interference, in fact 5 trillion out of the 7 trillion dollars that the government uses to interfere, are from taxes, not usury.
>The purpose of money [. . .] as the population shrinks.
I don't see why this is so. The dollars in existence doesn't need to fluctuate in response to the population size. What you're talking about is the divisibility of a currency. Increasing the quantity of a money is a very crude way to increase it's divisibility.
>Banning private banking, usury, and fractional reserves are one way of limiting inflation.
Taxing hording and speculation are other ways.
Limiting who uses the currency (domestic citizens only) is another way, because you limit the population the currency services.
Could just stop printing money.
>Ideally you would do all of the above, then [. . .]
What if you just reduced government spending? Ah, but that'd be giving up your control over other people, can't do that then can you?
[Reply] [Last 50 Posts] [Last 100 Posts] [Last 200 Posts]
You are viewing older replies. Click [View All] or [Last n Posts] to vew latest posts.
Clicking update will load all posts posted after last post on this page.
Post pagination: [Prev] [1-100] [101-197] [Next] [Live (last 100 replies)]
197 replies | 29 files | 48 UUIDs | Page 9
[Add to Thread Watcher]