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
147 replies and 23 files omitted.
>>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] [1-50] [51-100] [101-150] [151-197] [Next] [Live (last 50 replies)]
197 replies | 29 files | 48 UUIDs | Page 9
[Add to Thread Watcher]