/mlpol/ - My Little Politics

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]

>>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? [Embed]

>>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]

>>384880
>neoliberal
>capitalism
mixed economy is bullshit
we need

>>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

>>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

>>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?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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”.

>>384890
Sounds like fancy Keynesianism.
>>385097
I suspect that Hitler's economic policy isn't discussed much because it's quite similar to Keynesianism. Also modern socialists don't want people to realize Hitler and them have similar ideologies.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>385087
>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.

>>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.

>>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

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

>>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

>>385267
>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.

>>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.

>>385273
Some labor is more valuable than other types of labor. Supply and demand is a thing. Overall labor is still superior to capital, thats my take
>>385278
Its true though, other than mobilizing for war efforts. Hitler was pro private property

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

>>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.

>>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

>>385313
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

>>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?

>>385350
>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>385368
Alright and by what force was that tree made into something useful to your neighbor?

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>385384
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

>>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.

>>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."

>>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

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>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

>>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.

>>386260
>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.

>>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.

>>386263
Milei quite literally privatized them

>>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.

>>386265
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.

>>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

>>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!

>>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

>>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

>>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.

>>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.

>>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.)

>>386288
you can use [ g ] tag to make text green
>>386282
>you can't just privatize an ineffective state monopoly that relied on tax money of others! It is strategic for our nation!

>>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))).

>>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

>>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.

>>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

>>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

>>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.

>>386306
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.

>>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.

>>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.

>>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

>>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)

>>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.

>>386278
yep

>>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.

>>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.

>>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?

>>386326
>deficits should be solved by cutting spending (incl. oh-so-precious gibs)
I agree. But there is political difficulty in that. The voters find it less painful to force tax burden onto foreign countries than to reduce their gibs.
I hope that this will change, but I strongly feel that natural selection is against us.

>>386339
>The dollars in existence doesn't need to fluctuate in response to the population size
A unit of currency represents a fraction of an individual's lifespan no matter what economic system you want to play with.
Inflation and deflation are by definition and adjustment of the value of an individual's life.
Don't print: live like a pauper and like die like a king
Print too much: spend it now or use it for rags

>Could just stop printing money.
>print money
Money has intrinsic value outside of an economy, currency does not. You cannot print money.
Nothing grand has been built without printing currency.
In fact, the only two purposes of government are to protect the standard of living, and improve the standard of living through massive projects.

>Ah, but that'd be giving up your control over other people, can't do that then can you?
Go to Nigeria if you want to live in a libertarian paradise.
If you want people to be stable and reproduce, you give them a marriage loan and deduct 25% of the value of the loan for every child they have.
Then you tax porn, whores, adultery, and parasocial media.
People will still use porn, whores, swingers clubs, and parasocial media, but you'll be funneling a portion of that exploitative time to something that helps everyone.

If you want people to be industrious, you give them a interest free loan to start a business.
Then you tax imported items and business that use foreign labor that undercuts domestic labor, and funnel that exploitative time to domestic industry.

What is so controversial about taxing parasites to keep them under control and using their resources to grow something positive?

>>386343
you are mentally ill

>>386343
>Inflation and deflation are by definition and adjustment of the value of an individual's life.
That's not at all how inflation or deflation is defined. Fractional reserve banking and the practice of usury means that inflation is defined as an arcane form of coin clipping. Deflation conversely does not exist in any meaningful sense, since it involves adding value back to units of currency and is as such avoided by banks at all costs.

>>386422
>inflation or deflation is defined
>as an arcane form of coin clipping
Inflation:
You work 10 hours for 90oz of coinage (90% gold, 10% copper composition) today when two weeks ago your 10 hours earned you 100oz of coinage made of 100% gold.
Therefore: the time you spend at work (a fraction of your lifespan) has lost 10% of it's value.
The basis of all value is man-hours.

>>386354
Not an argument.

Nothing I've said is controversial. Almost everything I've described has been historically implemented.
The implementation was so wildly successful that investors and industrialists started a war over the implementation.

>>386427
That's an incidental effect, not the intended function

>>386422
We’re arguing with a hamster.

>>386354
>>386477
t. Bri'ish

>>386339
Laws on enforcing morals arent the same as gun control. Thats quite a dumb false equivalence. Nothing that i said logically concludes that we need to ban dangerous tools.
Who cares that boomer neocon inc. believes in high regulation? They arent regulating morals, it seems you just blatantly ignored the argument I made that they arent targeting pornographers
>>386328
The market should exist to benefit the people. It shouldnt exist to benefit monopolies. The whole point is that everyone can participate in the market, not let it be monopolized by a select few
Im a believer in monopolies, but the free market shouldnt apply to them in most cases
As the say, the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Bosses and governments will face resistance if basic needs arent met. So I say its possible for them both to equally give a shit. Not all bosses are a part of corporate abuse
>>386334
I didnt contradict myself at all. A little inflation isnt bad. A lot of inflation is bad. Usury causes a lot of inflation, and even if welfare and healthcare didnt have a cost usury would still be an issue.
Also, usury is the main reason why they can import cheap brown labor, which is then driving up healthcare and welfare costs. Whites and asians produce a economic surplus, if we didnt have niggers and spics then your point about heathcare and welfare would be completely nullified

>>386237
They support no tariffs, no taxes, and child sex slaves. Are you honestly surprised they are retarded?
There are times I want to side with communism over libertarianism until the commies start talking about lining up every productive worker against the wall for not perfectly following their communist doctrine.

Why are both sides SO GOD DAMN FUCKING RETARDED? I would like to make sure the workers get their needs instead of being thrown away and replaced when they get too broken to work. Or encourage innovations to help improve society instead of it getting stolen or shut down by government or greedy corpos.

>>386788
Well there's different sects of commies, if you like their theory but don't like the firing squad stuff, maybe something like anarcho-syndicalism? Seems interesting from the Wikipedia. I could see it mixed with >>384890 being a promising combo.

>>386800
Anarcho-synadicalism? So basically gangs and cartels, the two things I hate the most in this world.
Before some retard go, "Hurr durr, not all of them are gangs and cartels", you undermining the ruling system with your fellow comrades, that is literally a gang by definition. We're trying to build a better nation, not being a parasite.

That being said, Anarcho-synadicialism does work but it require a network. Sometimes the ruling system can't unfuck itself or will take a long time to unfuck itself. At that point you can wait or find people who share your common interest and try to help one another in a broken system.

When the automation/AI/robots take over, I will love to see how the lolbertards is going to solve the problem of a huge jobless starving angry mob which they can't put to the wall then who's is going to consume all those products produce by automation/AI/robots?

>>386805
Give everyone their own robot that will build shit for them.

>>386808
>Even if the labor is free, what the fuck is material cost?
>Implying people don't sell their government issued robot the first chance they get
You making it a lot easier for me to take the commie pill

>>386814
Make the mines into public commons send robot to the mines for materials. For materials that don't need to be mined use bioreactor with AI assisted enzyme design.

>>386816
But what if you live in a country that doesn't got those materials? Checkmate.
I'm not going to ask how you magically got everybody a robot that can do every task to meet their needs.

>>386820
>But what if you live in a country that doesn't got those materials?
Buy them from a country that does or trade?

>I'm not going to ask how you magically got everybody a robot that can do every task to meet their needs.
You probably don't need to give everyone a robot that can do every task. Person A gets a 3D printer, person B gets a CNC machine, person C gets a bioreactor, ect. None of these pieces of equipment are very expensive and they could be purchased with tax money and given to people. The idea here is to make people less dependent on both mega corporations AND the state.

>>386822
>Buy them from a country that does or trade?
Did I forgot to mention he have no money? You going to send R2D2 to go collect materials from other country? By the R2D2 comeback and if it come back, it's owner have already starved to death.

>I know you have no money and hungry, but here's a government issued 3D printer.
Oh yeah, that's going to help feed him and his family. I bet the plastic taste good.

>The idea here is to make people less dependent on both mega corporations AND the state.
That's not going to happen and don't even pretend it can happen. Not everybody have the land, resources, or skills.
Most people are happy to be wageslaves as long their needs as meet. But in the future when automation/AI/robots take over, most people won't have that option. The main point of people is to consume resources to keep the economic train going.

>>386805
>When the automation/AI/robots take over, I will love to see how the lolbertards is going to solve the problem of a huge jobless starving angry mob which they can't put to the wall then who's is going to consume all those products produce by automation/AI/robots?
I'm tired of neo-Luddism and imbeciles like (You) that follow it because neural links can shit a terrible illusion of a reasonable mind

>>386827
OP asked about future economic systems. In the future, most people jobs will be replaced by machines. I'm just point out the obvious. In order to have a strong economy, people need purchasing power in order to consume, but it's hard to do that if a lot of people have no job. The only solution is to give everybody an income from the government in order to keep the economy moving.

>>386830
new id cuz phonefagginf
the state cannot generate wealth: it can only cease it from others through taxation
Following your logic money from taxed businesses should be given to niggercattle to let the cattle consooom products of said businesses

>>386830
Or maybe western civilisation will collapse before that happens. The competency crisis is already here. And a lot of people do seem to complain about techlology spiraling out of control. Or do you think the human race would rather willingly enslave itself even further just so a robot can wipe their ass for them?

>>386840
Yes, that is the future where people are niggercattle. Their job is to consume until the day they die like cattle.

>>386836
>socialist rhetoric
lol
>>386842
Your system wouldn't work because there's no incentive to keep niggercattle
unless, or course, you want to do
>soylent green is people!

>>386437
>That's an incidental effect, not the intended function
WEW
Looks like someone hasn't taken a step back to look at who created fractional reserve banking and usury.
Both are forms of slavery. vid related

>>386830
>people need purchasing power in order to consume
I HAVE TO CONSOOOOOM
I'M CONSOOOOMING
>The only solution is to give everybody an income from the government in order to keep the economy moving
I'M CONSOOOOOMING ARRRRRRRRRRGH!!1!!1!!!

The only people who matter are parents with children.
The child consumes food, water, clothes, toys, information and produces a future.
The parents can never provide all of these things in an adequate quantity to produce offspring of superior quality than themselves.
Raising superior future generations is the basis of the entire economy.

>>386843
We already have niggercattle that already useless. In fact, they worse then useless because some are a cost to society.
It's a lot expensive to feed a niggercattle behind bars with security watching them 24/7.

>>386843
>socialist rhetoric
Mussolini: What's good for the state is good for the people
Mosley: Pinkos and jew lovers are ruining Britain
Hitler: What's good for the people is good for the state (p.s. Bolsheviks and their allies aren't human)

>>386844
I'm not going to bother watching that because you are attempting to use it to define the economic system we live in as how you'd like it to be, not as it actually is. Inflation isn't defined by the value of labour, even if we'd all like it to be, it's defined as the reduction of the purchasing power of the dollar due to the ever mounting weight of interest payments. As nice as it would be to live in Nazi Germany in the 1930s, nobody here is German, or living in Germany over a hundred years ago, so it is completely worthless to wish for a state of affairs that currently does not exist.

You aren't dropping truth nukes here to the unenlightened, you're preaching to a choir sans church.

>>386848
I wish we can dump our prison population into the meat grinder like Russia

>>386846
>bolsheviks were wrong socialists
kek gooe luck solving the ECP in your natsoc state

>>386847
>Inflation isn't defined by the value of labour, even if we'd all like it to be
>it's defined as the reduction of the purchasing power
Your time = less things than the past
>due to the ever mounting weight of interest payments.
Your time = less things than the past (because coin clipping)

Thanks for confirming the definition of inflation.

>nobody here is German
I see a British flag (tally sticks, ban on usury)
I have an American flag (no central bank for most of it's existence)
>so it is completely worthless to wish for a state of affairs that currently does not exist
Thread Title: Future economic systems?
Does not exist.

Have another clip.
You should watch the whole thing, it would do you good: The Money Masters

>>386844
>Looks like someone hasn't taken a step back to look at who created fractional reserve banking and usury.
Both are forms of slavery.
ATTENTION: YOU MUST BE THIS TALL TO POST HERE

>>386849
you can though
Your fancy piece of paper allows for involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime
declare war of Iran, goyim

>>386824
>Oh yeah, that's going to help feed him and his family. I bet the plastic taste good.
They would be able to exchange the goods the create for other goods

>>386824
>That's not going to happen and don't even pretend it can happen. Not everybody have the land, resources, or skills.
Most people are happy to be wageslaves as long their needs as meet. But in the future when automation/AI/robots take over, most people won't have that option.
Then we are kind of fucked when that happens as the people will have no leverage against the mega corporations or the state and will be completely at the mercy of those who control the robots. You say "not everyone has the skill" but I have seen 10 year olds use 3d printers and 3018 CNC machines.

>The main point of people is to consume resources to keep the economic train going.
The point was to create and consume and it has been for all of our history. Maybe people can find employment as lab rats for new transhumanist technologies or as bioreactors for antibodies.

>>386851
>(((the business cycle)))
this is what it's all about: it's classic bait and switch ploy. But the question is this... after a while, the victim gets wind of the pattern and is reluctant to borrow (print) too much when when rates are low. So then how do you get them under enough pressure to panic borrow?

>>386851
As mentioned, that is an incidental effect of our present economic system, our present economic system operates almost entirely off of fiat. The dollar has value because the government says so, the dollar loses value because of usury. Man hours does not even enter into it, as a matter of fact, every single western economy has shifted away from manufacturing where man hours produce tangible value to a worthless service and debt-based economy concealed by the market's faith in GDP.

Basing a currency value on time alone is an unfathomably stupid idea, because that's how you incentivise service economies where a double digit percentage of humanity is engaged in hamster wheel gigs that lead nowhere. Time spent on labour means nothing if tangible goods are not produced from them, if services must exist, they must demonstrably prove that they augment production or extraction labour.

>>386850
>bolsheviks
>socialists
Bolsheviks are Tikkun olam worshipers. Communism is Jewry.

>>386856
>Most people are happy to be wageslaves as long their needs as meet. But in the future when automation/AI/robots take over, most people won't have that option.
Luddite, machines already replaced millions of manual labor workers

>>386862
I meant to have that part as a quote. That part was from the person I was responding to.

>>386864
Feel like pic rel rn

>>386856
>Maybe people can find employment as lab rats for new transhumanist technologies or as bioreactors for antibodies.
>Get in the pod, goy
The matrix future is a possibility.

>>386868
Oh I bet we could graft organs onto people for transplants too! All kinds of options for employment!

>>386858
>Basing a currency value on time alone is an unfathomably stupid idea, because that's how you incentivise service economies
All currency is based on man-hours, no matter what you think.
Pick anything in existence, anything at all, and the basis of it's value is the man-hours needed to utilize it.
It works fine uninterrupted for spans of hundreds of years until someone comes along and forges the economic instruments (clipping, usury, fractional-reserve).
Basing your currency on man-hours alone removes every middleman, and makes all value readily apparent.

>Service economy
It's called slavery. You serve for pennies so your masters can live like kings.
Outsourcing is slavery.
Exporting industry is slavery.
Chaining advanced algorithms to tasks is the latest slavery.

>incentivise service economies
"Service economies" are the result of de-industrialization.
De-industrialization is the result of jews using foreign slave labor and "free trade" to skirt domestic labor laws in order to maximize profits.
There isn't a single manufactured thing your people couldn't make for yourselves.

>>386874
>All currency is based on man-hours
It currently, presently, literally is not, no matter what kind of mental gymnastics you go through.

>>386874
> All currency is based on man-hours
maybe it should, but I doubt it actually is.
Because man-hours in the West are valued differently from man-hours in Bujumbura
And then there is the individual level of efficiency or competence of the person... every person is different and has a different work capacity and efficiency. Someone with higher capacity and efficiency will probably be valued more, no?

>>386875
The land you inhabit carries a property tax.
That tax is based on land valuation.
That land valuation is based on it's desirability due to someone in the past taming the land for human usage.
That land valuation is also based on the building's value.
Those things took man-hours.

You pay taxes to use that land.
You can only pay taxes using an approved currency.
The currency derives it's value from the tax, which derives it's value from the man-hours.

Now do it for your income.
You have a job to buy things.
Those things are made and maintained by other people.

Why is a classic incandescent light bulb so cheap now?
Because they take less man-hours to produce than they did 100 years ago.

>>386876
>Someone with higher capacity and efficiency will probably be valued more, no?
Absolutely.

>>386877
The entire chain of man hours that go into producing your mobile phone from resource extraction, to manufacture, to sale collectively get paid less than a single CEO who maybe does an interview to announce the phone's release on the market. Man hours are NOT the definition of value.

>>386879
>Man hours are NOT the definition of value
You seem to think that when I say that man-hours is the basis of all value I'm saying that all men are equal.
This is not the case.

In the current world economy:
The time of an African slave is 1/1000000000
The time of a Chinese slave is 1/1000000
The time of a Corporate slave is 1/6000
The time of a philosemite slave is 1/2000

>>386878
>Absolutely
ok so then how is value actually determined?
When I determine my hourly rate, this is what I do: I determine how much I want to earn and I want to be somewhere north of the mean yearly income of my country. Then I divide that by the amount of hours I want to work in a year.
Another thing I think about is this: how many years would it take me to pay off a mortgage for an average house where I live? Today, for 2 full time incomes, it takes about 25-35 years. In the 80's, it was just 5-10 years.
So because of this, I tend to value my hourly rate even higher still. Because in my mind, having a roof over your head is literally the most basic thing in life. If that becomes unaffordable without working yourself into an early grave, then what's the point?

>>386881
>It's man-hours, but not really :)
Okay you're just full of shit then

>>386895
fixed it for ya

>>386805
Well my thought process is it seems modular, so you could quickly get a logistics chain started back up if everything goes to shit.

>>386921
Oh my ID reshuffled? I've been posting on desktop and my ereader and it's shared my ID since it's the same WiFi. It's still the same WiFi but my ID changed. Will see if it happened on desktop too.

>>386788
>They support no tariffs, no taxes, and child sex slaves.
>not wanting to be taxed morally equatable to being a pedophile
Don’t get why you’ve listed anti-taxation there.
Also you’re confusing not having a government officaply outlaw pedophiles with actively supporting child-rape. I don’t understand why you’ve done so.

>>386805
>When the automation/AI/robots take over, I will love to see how the lolbertards is going to solve the problem of a huge jobless starving angry mob
The libertarian solution was to implement libertarianism long before the automation came along: without redistributive policies, minimum wages, etc blah blah, the lower-quality humans that are being made obsolete would never have reproduced to the numbers they have. Without your statist meddling, there would be no automation crisis because only a small number of people would be useless enough to become outmoded by robots.
This follows the pattern of statism: interfere with the market to solve what you think is an issue, cause a new problem, enact more state interference to solve this problem, causing a new problem.
When the automation problem comes along, idiots in government will again interfere, perhaps outlawing robots for small businesses to reduce job losses; causing a problem of large corporations benefiting unfairly.

Frankly the root cause of statism is dysgenics; the population is too stupid to intuitively reject state intervention.

>>386805
> When the automation/AI/robots take over, I will love to see how the lolbertards is going to solve the problem of a huge jobless starving angry mob
that's what the vax is for for m8

> who's is going to consume all those products produce by automation/AI/robots?
the elite

>>386830
>most people jobs will be replaced by machines.
Wrong. You’re assuming intelligence (among other traits) remains constant in the population. Innovation raises the bar for what can be automated, but this does not mean the population will have no robots. It does mean you need to ensure eugenic breeding, something leftists and those who support redistributive policies can’t accept.

>>386841
>The competency crisis
Fruits of dysgenic breeding. Itself a product of complex civilization’s dysgengic selection pressures.

>>386830
>The only solution is to give everybody an income from the government in order to keep the economy moving.
Following Keynesianism is what caused the modern economic mess. The idea that people won’t carry out basic jobs to maintain life and result in deflationary collapse is stupid, i’m surprised people go on with the belief.

>>386849
Stop paying welfare to single mothers and new members of the prison population will stop being raised. The solution (as seemingly always) is non-intervention.

>>386808
Some minute amount if human labor is always required. Either you contribute it, you pay someone else on your behalf, or enslave them to contribute that labor for free. The robot-fuelled communist utopia is just the modern redistributive welfare state.

>>387612
>not wanting to be taxed morally equatable to being a pedophile
Libertarians and AnCaps are infamous for their "what if the child consent argument?". The further down the political compass goes, the more morally bankrupt they are.
Got murdered? You didn't enforce the NAP
Got robbed? You didn't enforce the NAP
Got raped in the ass by a wild pack niggers? You didn't enforce the NAP
Got sold into slavery as a child and got ass raped until adult? You didn't enforce the NAP
You are responsible for your freedom, no government or police is going to save you.
Do you understand that there some AnCaps who will shoulder check your NAP capability?

Like I know you're a brit that lives in a country with knife surrendering bins and can't even protect yourself or wear body armor. And if you get ass rape by a wild pack of muslims, the british police won't care. But I hope you understand that some people just want to use violence to get what they want and that is perfectly acceptable in an AnCap society.

>>388092
I don't think ancap would work but this seems like a "imagine you have two cows" teir misinterpretation of what they're about.
Also I think left-libs have Max Stirner, which doesn't believe in morality, but does see ethics as useful, which is pretty much formalized morality. Then again I don't know how popular Max Stirner actually is among them, I just see lefties on activitypub talking about him, nor have I actually read Max's works yet.

>>387620
>that's what the vax is for for m8
I'm not convinced they have something that is time released for the automation take over. It's going to be gradual process spanning the next couple of decades. It's unlikely there is something just lying dormant that will be activated 20 years later especially when gene therapies lose efficacy over time due to gene silencing and episomes being lost during cell division.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8865469/#:~:text=In%20summary%2C%20this%20study%20presents,in%20related%20gene%20therapy%20applications.
Ultimately I think the solution offered is going to be transhumanism. If you can make your workers smarter, stronger, and more durable while making yourself even smarter, stronger, and more durable. Why not do it? Especially when mRNA and DNA vaccines are so cheap to produce? If it is more cost effective to upgrade the workers than it is to buy new machines and run data centers then it is a no brainer.

>>388130
I have noticed my mood and ability to focus improved considerably since the jab despite my living conditions getting worse.

Please fucking read Die Nazi-Soci it will literally answer every economic question, with basically "put bad actors in camps" and "mandate supply side production.

I realize you horsefuckers have a libertarian marketnerd streak and I don't want to shit on your parade but economic questions are so irrelevant when you're being actively genocided. We do have a plan and its a good plan that has existed for quite some time, and worked so well the one time we got to acfually implement it it made a state the size of texas productive enough to fight the entire world with only spaghettiniggers and an Island full of weebs as backup.

>>388129
The closest thing is an AnCap society is some countries in Africa where you can exchange camels for machinguns, buy slaves, and do whatever you want as long you got the most power in the region. But everytime I mention that, I get replies like "BUT THOSE ARE NIGGERS COUNTRIES". There are remote places in the world where if you got enough men with guns, you can enforce whatever retarded society you want.

388108
Which is why you're not getting a (You). This retard thinks that everybody is going to magically respect the NAP and know every autistic rules when it come to enforcing and not enforcing the NAP. He's the type of the person in Wild West that either get shot behind the back in a poker game or get robbed and left for dead because he only got 1 gun to their 6 guns.

@388310
>xe refers to the Old West as Wild West
>xe refers to a successful American AnCap as something bad

388310
Still continuing with your retarded strawmanning, I see.

388316
Still no argument, I see. At one person here argue of solving the problem by being the capitalist version of Pol Pot.

388319
I'll argue when you actually criticize anarcho-capitalism, and not a retarded strawman of it you've conjured up in your mind.

388320
Third post and still no argument. I'm not going to guess what autistic definition you have for anarcho-capitalism or try to guess what autistic perfect AnCap society you have in your head.

>>388310
>There are remote places in the world where if you got enough men with guns, you can enforce whatever retarded society you want.
Perhaps with crossbows, ancap could be a speedrun strat to get up to feudalism when things collapse, then non-meme capitalism, then whatever's next. Industrialization will still be hard without oil/coal though. Solar steam engines might be an option.

>>388323
Neo-feudalism is actual a possibility once resources like oil and gas start running out. It's hard to protect your empire when you don't got the logistics for it and then suddenly you get a bunch a new nations popped up.

>>388325
Nuclear power will solve that problem.

>>388333
Looking into what the minimum equipment necessary to get nuclear power going could be interesting, like a Dr.Stone kinda thought experiment.
Hell I haven't read Dr. Stone yet for all I know they've covered that.

>>388092
>You are responsible for your freedom, no government or police is going to save you.
The government doesn’t do those things normally. It’s only motivation is to placate the crowds enough to prevent riots.
Your entire post is filled with non-arguments. Once you’re raped, you’ve been raped that’s it. Regardless if you live under government or AnCap; if there’s police to arrest your rapist, or the individuals of the market ostracise your rapist; you’ve been raped and there’s nothing to change that.

In effect you’re complaint is that under AnCap you wont get sufficient revenge on your rapist. That’s a non-argument as the exact same fucking thing happens under a government; look at Rotherham rape gangs. Even in the USA some victims want the death penalty for rapists.

>>388092
>Do you understand that there some AnCaps who will shoulder check your NAP capability?
You don’t understand the selection pressures present in a society with modern weapons and communications that naturally trivialize the threats posed by crime. Like most statists you’re too thick to get it.

>>388130
>Ultimately I think the solution offered is going to be transhumanism. If you can make your workers smarter, stronger, and more durable while making yourself even smarter, stronger, and more durable.
Free market genetic engineering I see as a viable eugenics system.
>Why not do it?
Eugenics is unpopular. Society has been brainwashed by the leftwing into thinking eugenics is evil. Even rulers in government think it is evil.

>>388310
AnCap isn’t going to pop into being overnight. It will be a natural evolution of government shrinking in size. We saw this happen in the renascence. Because civilization is cyclical (due to population genetics) we’ve been seeing governments grow for the past ~150 years.

>>388454
Ancap isn't going to "pop into being" at all. Prognosticate all you want, but you'll know real ancap when you get shot in the face

>>388310
>BUT THOSE ARE NIGGERS COUNTRIES
Analogous to calling a crew of 10 shipwrecked on an island AnCap because rest of their society is a thousand miles away. Those men have grown up with the culture they were raised in. Just because they’re shipwrecked doesn’t mean their culture and habits have suddenly changed, magic soil isn't real.
The same goes for an African shithole that recently toppled it’s dictator. The people of that nation were raised with a culture that had a government and all that goes with it. Just because the closest thing to a government are the roving gangs brandishing the guns given to them by the CIA again doesn’t mean the culture and habits of the people in that country have magically changed.

Once again, non-argument.

>>388310
>everybody is going to magically respect the NAP
Most people have sufficient foresight and planning abilities. In our government dominant societies it is the same. Most people of the mindset to commit crime do not; they don’t want to go to jail. Yet there are some people who commit crime regardless, be it brazenness or stupidity.
Under AnCap, jail is replaced by social ostracization and violence posed by guns: the people who commit crime inspite of these consequences are either killed in a gunfight or have no life due to ostracization. Natural selection -not a government- punishes crime.

>>388310
>in Wild West that either get shot behind the back in a poker game or get robbed
Irony is less than 10 bank robberies occurred throughout the entire wild west period. All thanks to healthy gun ownership and private security systems employed by banks.

>>388460
This. The 'wildness' of the west is imagined by hollywood. Most folks were scared of getting shot for putting a foot wrong (and with good reason, since their neighbors were judge and jury)

>>388363
>the minimum equipment necessary to get nuclear power
Due to government regulations it is prohibitively expensive.
Physically nuclear reactors could be as simple as a pile of natural uranium at the bottom of a swimming pool. More practical designs using late 19th century technology would be feasible.

>>388456
Not an argument.

>>388463
>not an argument
Not intended to be, it was an indictment of how faggots like (you) wanna prognostigate on the internet.

You were saying?

>>388458
>Under AnCap, jail is replaced by social ostracization and violence posed by guns
I'd add onto this that most models of an AnCap legal system involve voluntary protection agencies and courts for disputes. In a Hoppean covenant community, for example, it is likely that landlords would agree to contracts with competing security and arbitration services based on their record of competence and integrity, to attract tenants. It's likely the rate of clearance would be higher if anything.

>>388460
That's cute, now look up stage coach robberies.