Left of center is the most effective system of government in terms of widespread prosperity. It has been tested repeatedly this past century(with large aspects of it ignored in school), and we are closer to coming to this realization on a more widespread level than you think. Ron Paul, along with the parallel beliefs of late Milton Friedman followers, want to set us back decades of years in terms of progress. Chicago School and Austrian economics are not the way. Contrary to the beliefs of people originally riled up by Ron Paul supporters who went on to vigorously read articles about free market economics and zealously idealize fantasies of a radical free market economy where everything balances out via an invisible hand, these theories have been tested more often than you think, and you are ignoring a large chunk of history. Since liberal means many things, and is a very loaded terms, I'm defining it as social democracies. This includes a safety net for the poorest, a higher rate of taxes the more money you make, and some social programs and protections for workers, but still a widespread free market where companies compete against each other.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keynesian_economics
Keynesian economics if you will, the status quo for every first world country. People irrationally associate all this with [i]socialism[/b] in a totalitarianism since. Not only does democracy favor socialism, a radical free market relies on an ignorant, controlled population to function, and Milton Friedman's policies have been consistently implemented in authoritarian regimes, not having been voted in by popular vote or anything of the sort. The reasoning behind this is, if by definition of average, most people make slightly above, at, and below average income, naturally they are going to vote for redistribution of wealth. Any vote to remove their own protections like minimum wage, sick leave, maternity leave, workers compensation, overtime pay, import tariffs, and aid to the poor, is a vote to further empower the upper elite class and is detrimental to their own self-interests. All the aforementioned, however, are also detrimental to the bottom line. They are operating expenses, and the trend in the 3rd world has been to use labels like socialism to use the WTO and the IMF to force ultimatums in exchange for loans and debt forgiveness, thus granting immense profits to multinational corporations but doing just about jack shit to help people better themselves as the invisible hand is supposed to naturally strike a balance between wages, prices, the cost of living, etc.
Based on what is taught in the public school system, the cold war was about containing communism, and keeping communism from spreading. However, communism was a blanket term applied to any weak socialism on par with what the countries of Europe or the US used at the time. The CIA trained, gave weapons to, and supported moves to overthrow popular dictators. Intellectuals and the western media threw their support towards anyone willing to privatize everything nationalize and foster big profits to American companies or other multinationals.
Very few people are aware of blood being spilled in the name of capitalism. After all, only communism can do evil. Thousands of people killed for having leftist ideas in latin America, asia, and whatnot are attributed to other things. All these proxy wars benefited the US but in turn hampered progress in the third world. My own parents are refugees from a small country that used to have free health care but has done nothing in terms of social progress ever since the “left” was defeated in the late 80s.
Let’s look at some quick case studies. This may be an iconoclast for those that think the free market is based on science and the ultimate understanding of human nature, based on models and calculations and not on reality and statistics.

chile
The Chicago school of economics trained dozens of top Chilean university students in the topic of Milton Friedman’s economics. When Salvador Allende was popularly elected president in the 70’s, the US spent 8 million dollars in 3 years attempting to sabotage the economy and block all of his moves towards nationalization. Allende was eventually overtaken via military coup, and Pinochet was put into power. Bear in mind that chile had existed democratically and peacefully for 160 years, and Pinochet bombed the shit out of the city in unprecedented violence. This is just one of many capitalist revolutions with the revolution moving to the hard right, not the hard left as your schoolbooks have taught you. Here leftists were rounded up and tortured in soccer stadiums. Milton Friedman himself flew to Chile and gave personal lessons to Pinochet. Back to economics: Inflation reached 375% in one year, health care was eradicated, school budgets were slashed, the government downsized by 25%, cut public spending by 27%, most government assets were sold off, natural resources were privatized, price controls were eliminated, and many of the factory owners that supported Pinochet initially closed up when they found they couldn’t compete with uncontrolled cheap foreign goods. The results were brutal. Between 1973 and 1983 177,000 industrial jobs were lost. In the first years of pinochets power, the unemployment rate went from 3% to 20%. A chilean’s basic cost of buying bread, milk, and bus fare went from 17% of his income under Allende to 74% of his income under Pinochet. By 1980, the country hyper-inflated, unemployment reached 30%, the country’s debt was at 14 billion, and things got so unstable that Pinochet was forced to renationalize many companies and fire several Chicago School graduates. In 1988 45% of the country was below the poverty rate, but the richest 10% had seen their incomes rise 83%. In 2007, Chile ranked as the 8th most unequal country according to UN statistics.
Brazil
The US backed a military junta by Humberto Castello Branco. Much of its economic program was designed by the Chicago boys
Uruguay
Revolted via military coup in 1973. Arnold Harberger, Professor Larry Sjaastad, and several other Chicago boys were put in charge of the economy. Real wages dropped 28%.
Indonesia
Since WW2, Indonesia had been led by President Sukarno. Sukarno rejected the IMF and the World Bank, redistributed wealth, and had import controls that frustrated multinationals. He was overthrown by CIA-backed General Suharto. The CIA prepared a document listing 5000 of the countries’ leading leftists, and one-by-one they were all assassinated . Suharto knew nothing of economics, and a think-tank funded by the ford foundation supplied his economic team, again well indoctrinated in the fundamentals of free-market economics nothing else. They passed laws allowing up to 100% of the country’s natural resources, tax holidays
Argentina
Revolted via military junta in 1976. The secretary of finance, the head of the central bank, the director of the treasury department, and many other top economic posts were filled by Chicago boys. See a trend here? Brazil, Uruguay, Chile and Argentina. The southern cone of south America was a huge laboratory for free-market economics. Would you call any of these countries prosperous today? Well, they’re developing, but under social democracies, not radical free market crap. In argentina, strikes were banned, he allowed employers to fire at will(when a law like that was passed in France a couple years ago, the French rioted.), and foreign ownership restrictions were lifted. He lifted price controls and the costs of necessities skyrocketed. Before the Junta took power, Argentina had a lower poverty rate than France or the US at the time: 9%, and an unemployment rate of 4.2%.

In all of the aforementioned, the military regimes tortured leftists. Estimates are at over 100,000 dead.

Bolivia
When Paz Estenssoro stole the election in 1985, Harvard Economist Jeffrey Sachs was put in charge of the economy. He was initially there to control runaway inflation, but then his “reforms” spilled into other aspects of the Bolivian economy. Paz ran on an a fairly leftist platform. However, with Sachs he compiled a radical free market plan and snuck it into law. Only 5 copies of this economic plan were printed, and 2 of those went to the chief of police and the head of the military, in case there were riots. Now, to Sachs’ credit, inflation dropped from 14,000% to 10%. Instead of leaving well enough alone, the other deregulating aspects of the plan caused unemployment to rise, real wages to drop 40%, the per-capita income dropped from $845 to $789, but the number is artificially high because of the wealth disparity. The average income of a peasant was $140 per year. Hundreds of thousands of jobs with pensions were dropped in favor of those with no protections. Between 1983 and 1988 , the number of Bolivians eligible for social security dropped 61% because that program was slashed too.
Poland
Thinking he had cured cancer in Bolivia, Sachs went on to help Poland when it broke from the USSR. Poland’s new government leaned heavily towards the left. It had broken away from the USSR in hopes of reducing corruption but still steering left. Lech Walesa and the Solidarity party led the country. In exchange for desperately needed economic aid from the IMF and World Bank, Poland was forced to whore out its own country. State assets were privatized, workers protections were slashed, and Poland was opened up to virtually unrestricted trade. This is a recurring theme. The hypocritical left doesn’t allow the same reconstruction that took place via the Marshal Plan after WW2 and the reconstruction of Japan. Since there is no “fear of communism” from the Soviet Union, the people are given no concessions and protections, and rabid uncontrolled capitalism turns everything into a scramble for who can secure wealth first.
China and Russia
Communism as it has been practiced has led to a strong, controlling elite. What surprises me is the double-think that goes on. There is the obvious fact that Nazi germany was authoritarian but allowed a relatively free market, but when it comes to the USSR and Commie China it is ignored that capitalism can be used to strengthen this elite and provide huge wealth gaps. Capitalism is falsely synonymized with freedom. You can control freedom of speech, political opposition, and civil liberties and still be very capitalist. Milton Friedman lectured the Chinese elite, and they shifted to capitalism while privatizing the wealth to themselves.
Russia was an human developmental disaster. Here was the chance to aid it and rebuild it like the West under the marhal plan. Why couldn’t east germany be built like west germany? Boris Yeltsin essentially took full control of the economy and privatized everything, giving it all away to party elites. So now you have some of the worst class disparity in the world in Russia, with rich oligarchs making billions of dollars while the Russian middle class is extremely small, with more Russians below the poverty line than under Communism, and a drastically higher unemployment rate than under communism.
Russia was a fucking tragedy. For quite possibly the first time, there was a chance to start from scratch. To create a 'capitalist' society from scratch without there being the remains of pre-industrial aristocracy, without there being a concentration of wealth among heirs to fortunes made during industrialization. There was a clean slate - an industrialized nation, not in good shape mind you, but industrialized nonetheless and the opportunity to bring in a free market economy and actually begin with a somewhat equitable distribution of wealth. And that opportunity was thrown away. Yeltsin, and every one of the ideologically driven western advisers who were there advising him during the whole process deserve to burn in hell for what they did to the country. They could have incorporated the soviet industries and ran them for profit. Brought in managers from overseas if they really needed too. Hell, if they really wanted to they could give out dividends (like oil in alaska) to everyone. But no, the little imps proclaimed their faith in the magical power of markets. A sane person might think that maybe law and order and the general restoration of normality after a systemic collapse might be a little higher on the order of priorities, but no. Must privatize! the markets will do the rest! never mind that the whole political apparatus was still corrupt as hell or that the voucher system for distributing ownership was insane and doomed to failure given the state of the country. The loans scheme was insane. This was the 90s! The government could have sourced foreign investment given the assets they could offer as security! at the very least they could have had proper share floats and got a fair price for the equity that they ended up basically giving away! Instead they sold off their nations wealth for a pittance and created the sort of wealth gap that normally takes generations to come about. Okay, rant a bit. But it's bloody horrible.

On redistribution of wealth

Every highly-developed country that meets the top of the human development index is a social democracy. Countries that have consistently attempted radical free-market libertarianism have consistently ranked lower in literacy rates, wealth-poor gap, mortality rate, etc. Also, this notion that social democracy, weak socialism, etc. equates with oppression is completely false. Deregulation=/= freedom regulation =/= oppression. That is why it has consistently taken manipulation, coups, single-party rule, and foreign interference for radical libertarian economic principles to take effect in countries like Chile under pinochet, uruguay, brazil, indonesia, argentina, south africa, post-soviet russia( a complete human development disaster caused by uncontrolled capitalism), China, Bolivia, etc. Money is power. In any given democracy, most people make below or slightly above average income. A tendency among the people to redistribute excess wealth and favor a safety net and social programs is a natural function of democracy. China and Russia, for example, have managed to keep the elites elite and make the poor even poorer by applying capitalism while giving rights to privatization to party elites and destroying necessary protections for workers like healthcare, medical leave, labor unions, overtime pay, and safe working conditions.
You live in a fucking socialistic government and YOUR life is better because of it and a lot more people have a chance at a more level playing field and a society that upholds social mobility and take some measures to foster competition between the driven, hard-working people and those that won the genetic lottery. This whole notion that socialism only punishes the rich to reward the lazy is fucking bullshit.
I don't mind the wealthiest minority paying the highest tax rate, because the way I see it they extract the most benefit from society. Someone at the poverty level may get some assistance amounting to hundreds, if not thousands of dollars. At the same time they are still contributing to society. They are consumers of various products, trickling up the very wealth that was distributed to them. Someone very poor is likely not a manager or has people working under him, gets less out of the education system, lives in neighborhoods with less protection, and doesn't rely on a judicial system to defend their intellectual property because they likely have none. The non-contributors are the homeless, and as far as I know homeless vagabonds don't get welfare checks, and they live off of everyone's discarded trash. Giving poor people enough aid not to live on the streets is a net benefit, leading to that much less crime and instability. In the various latin american revolutions where social democracies were overthrown with US funding in favor of elimination of every benefit, leaving millions in squalor.

Who are the wealthiest? They are people with vast quantities of pieces of paper given value by the government(fiat) and its relative value. Without the complexities of society it's worthless. They have lots of people working under them, educated by the American school system. They themselves and their children may go to private schools, but their workforce, their market, their defenders(police and legal), are not.
When their large commercial fleets of vehicles hit the road, their extra wear and tear on the road among the millions of other drivers in smaller cars paying the same gas tax. Intellectual property, the stuff of patents and copyright are a huge deal, probably the biggest beneficiaries of society. Business revolving around that is worthless without a powerful judicial system and a police force willing to arrest violators. In a lot of third world countries it's hard to find legitimate copies of software and music and movies because little is done to enforce these laws. Bootlegs are sold openly. Even if they pay their due court fees, they put a big strain on the system.

Then there is security. Living in a society as stable as ours without mass kidnappings, mass murder, car bombs, etc. An army that deters everyone, and a host of other protections is an important business advantage that keeps most people from switching their headquarters to fucking Somalia or something.

Lastly, a natural tendency of business is to keep the top people on top. If they are the best of the best, this is not necessarily bad. What happens is monopolies form, collusion occurs, competitors fail, etc. I think it's absurd not to tax heavily a business that may not have made it to where it was if a monopoly or oligarchy had taken control of the playing field and not let them rise to the top. Taxing is just another thing that keeps them in check. Unfortunately, according to this book and various other sources, companies abuse the legal system and bribe politicians into allowing shockingly low tax rates to be paid. When businesses skimp on taxes, the middle class subsidizes it.

People understand that money is power, and when you vote for redistribution you're redistributing power, lest the minority get too much control of the majority
Social liberties
If social liberties and unrestricted capitalism go hand in hand, why is more socialist Europe more lax about drug laws, drinking laws, gay marriage, abortion, etc? Why are those societies more tolerant?
That’s what irks me about Paultards. Everyone says “omg legalized, pot!” without understanding that you don’t need to become a corporatist whore to do all that.

more to come...

You can thank the economic collapse for all this. It's funny how much support ron paul had before the current economic collapse. Then deregulation started being blamed, and now Obama has much more support. Libertarians double-think that anything wrong with the economy is caused by government interference, and government interference hinders recovery. hoover did nothing when the great depression hit, and guess what, jack shit recovered until FDR got elected. Don't get me started on the broken window (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy) idea that ww2 was the only reason we recovered.

Now that people are seeing a free market hiccup they are open to being taught things like Naomi Klein's shock
doctrine.

Spread the word about the federal reserve. You don't need to revert back to the same lawlessness that allowed some people to get so rich that they could pass a law saying that every dollar created in the US is owed to private bankers in order to eradicate it.

See this thread on why the gold standard sucks, too. (http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2171756) The government should control fiat, not the federal reserve or a shiny metal better suited for industrial use.

Right now is not the time to experiment with corporatism *wink*.
http://www.chrismartenson.com/crashcourse
Watch this 2 hour presentation on why exponential growth, the environment, peak oil, and government insolvency are delivering a triple whammy within the next 20 years. Government resources on the scale of military research, the manhattan project, NASA and the ESA should be put to use finding energy alternatives. The free market will not save us fast enough to prevent feudalism.

tl/dr (currently; will look later)

though related link:
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/usinterventionism.html?q=usinterventionism.html

while I do agree with what you're saying doesn't it sound aggressive or mean? I don't know but that saying "reality has a liberal bias" seems mean..or it's bad experiences with some forums..eh.

Watch this 2 hour presentation on why exponential growth, the environment, peak oil, and government insolvency are delivering a triple whammy within the next 20 years.

Chicago Metro Area should be doing relatively better than other places. We have ~6 nuclear plants powering the area, Illinois in general gets most of its' power from nuclear, we have Lake Michigan for Water (so no droughts unlike Atlanta and some southwest states might experience) and I live in the actual city and am used to taking bus/train/whatnot. (so glad there's a Metra line literally down the street from me).

Though the contraction of the huge ass expanses of Western and Northern Suburbs and abandonment of the Edge Cities....eh..


Government resources on the scale of military research, the manhattan project, NASA and the ESA should be put to use finding energy alternatives. The free market will not save us fast enough to prevent feudalism.

true. Though it's too late and Obama won' do it at nearly the scale. though the peak oil still doesn't exactly have a certain date agreed on so that could be a good thing. That and the rates do vary depending on who you ask, and all those factore.

given my shit math (unless those classes im taking next semester help me) i'm thinking fuck engineering and go into urban geography or planning. I think that'd have a goog use in LATOC.

Ask the user Tommy Lund. Economic prosperity and stability the likes of which Norway and the rest of Scandinavia enjoys is unachievable, or at least unsustainable, under a pure free market.

I despise people who liken left wings politics to socialism, or Obama to socialism. First things first, the dude isn't fucking socialist, he's center-left. Second, I say, what the fuck is wrong with socialism. Ask Western Europe, they've been gently wiping their asses with the dollar for the past decade thanks to socialist economic systems. It works.

My personal favorite are the ABSOLUTE TURDS who liken socialism to communism. I do not believe this dignifies a response...

Zay, you're completely spot on ;)

l[/url]

while I do agree with what you're saying doesn't it sound aggressive or mean? I don't know but that saying "reality has a liberal bias" seems mean..or it's bad experiences with some forums..eh.

I have to rile up rebuttals, don't I? I should have written this thing from scratch because some of it gets repetitive. I made this thread from copying pasting various posts of mine where right-wing trolls dish out the same buzzwords. Communist, socialist, liberals, blah blah blah :rolleyes:

I have to rile up rebuttals, don't I?

not in my case. for others probably.

I should have written this thing from scratch because some of it gets repetitive. I made this thread from copying pasting various posts of mine where right-wing trolls dish out the same buzzwords. Communist, socialist, liberals, blah blah blah :rolleyes:

oh. okay. yeah. It seemed like you were "making it from scratch". I did not detect it.

I have to rile up rebuttals, don't I? I should have written this thing from scratch because some of it gets repetitive. I made this thread from copying pasting various posts of mine where right-wing trolls dish out the same buzzwords. Communist, socialist, liberals, blah blah blah :rolleyes:

STFU you dirty socialist.

Please, I know that every single piece of evidence I could throw at you would be rebutted by some copypasta from some nutty philosopher but just use fucking common sense and see that capitalist societies have thrived in both economic power, quality of living and militaristic presence.

excellent post about Social Democracy. I believe in a Socialist Democracy but it's very very very important that we go a little bit further than that. Essentially what we need is a free capitalistic society with LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT intervention. I feel one of the biggest problems we are facing isn't just the fact that Corporations are nicely tied with Politics and that redistribution of wealth needs improving, but rather we need need to give power back to the states. Your idea's are sound and exactly on par with mine except your still thinking nationally rather than locally. It was no accident our system was set up this way because it further balances out power in the U.S. We need the Federal Government in place to provide a large standing Army and provide for national defense. We also need them there to provide basic protection such as child labor laws and blah blah blah, however, our federal government, particularily with Obama in power, is gaining more and more control which in theory could work but in actuality giving complete power to one entity can lend itself to eventually tarnish into corruption. This is exactly why we need the state system back. Let the States govern their own people and provide social welfare to their own poor while letting the Fed reinforce BASIC NECESSITIES for the people while providing for national defense as well. I think if we moved more in the direction you proposed as well as in some of Ron Pauls proposed directions we would see significant improvement. But first and foremost we must change our monetary policy. Maybe the Gold standard wont work (and it certainly wont work immediately, if at all) but this fiat system we have is just setting us up for a future disaster. This is why I like Ron Paul over Obama. He may not have the right answers but he certainly understands the true problem. Obama just wants to add more money, add more money, add more money. And he wants to redistribute the wealth? Great idea except by taxing the rich its just going to go to paying off the immense debt rather than for welfare under our current system. Obama's ideas are good but their not feasible right now. We can't just create more money to solve the problem. We need to re-evaluate the monetary system and figure out where we went wrong. Anyway your idea excellent but we need to be thinking more locally than nationally. That's part of the reason why we're in this mess. When people look at things nationally they will attempt to national problems as well. Many solutions work for some states but fail miserably for others.

just use fucking common sense

"common sense" is EVIL! KILL IT WITH FIRE!

and see that capitalist societies have thrived in both economic power,

controlled by a bunch of rich white men (and soon to be asians)

quality of living

if you're a rich white man. i'd be treated NIGGER and lynched for asserting my rights. Say that BS to people living in the inner-city ghettos and watch the reactions of LOL.

and militaristic presence.

wait...that's good?

also see this in how those "Capitalist Societies" fuck the rest of the world over.
http://www.professor-frithjof-kuhnen.de/publications/causes-of-underdevelopment/2-3.htm

STFU you dirty socialist.

Please, I know that every single piece of evidence I could throw at you would be rebutted by some copypasta from some nutty philosopher but just use fucking common sense and see that capitalist societies have thrived in both economic power, quality of living and militaristic presence.

See, this is the tribal mentality I'm taking a stab at. You're not even wrong, but you think you're right for the wrong reasons.

I completely agree with you. All first world countries practice capitalism.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation?

See, this is the tribal mentality I'm taking a stab at. You're not even wrong, but you think you're right for the wrong reasons.

I completely agree with you. All first world countries practice capitalism.

Do you have anything to add to the conversation?

If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

Mack 09:

That isn't the argument he's presenting so please don't insult our intelligence. Capitalism can and does work but it is impossible for a free market system to work without lending itself to corruption. Competition is the primary factor involved with a free market society and if it isn't checked by some sort of power then you get an upset in the balance of power. The problem right now is, we are giving up too much power to the national government and they are beginning to nationalize banks and other financial institutions. People, feel this is necessary because they remember the late 1800's when industrialization was in its most horrific form (read the jungle). So they are quick to say that it's because we didn't have enough national power that we experienced this dark time in American History. Though, that is the problem we kind of went overboard, after this financial crisis hit, and now people feel its because there is too little government intervention that we are in this whole rut. Not at all true. The core problem is that because of this symbiosis of corporations and government, there is no longer this incentive to protect the people. It is now corrupted to the point of self profit only. Our entire foreign policy at this point is a joke because we're not going to war in the name of freedom or because we have a humanitarian duty....we're going for profit profit profit and because it's outside the U.S policies to keep them in line doesn't apply so you end up seeing these industries cut corners in order to maximize profits just like the 1800's. We loan money to countries but only under the condition that they purchase our services with the money that we loan them. We move in build half ass roads and infrastructures and then they basically give the money back to us where that money is filtered through the industries back to the government (well top portion of the gov). Another condition to these contracts is that they have to pay us back in interest and they must use our currency and they must also allow us to purchase their resources. However because the interest builds up they must use the money we give them for the resources to pay off the debt that continuously builds up and soon they end up in a strangle hold of debt and then you have the next country indirectly controlled by us. Most of the money comes back to us and what little is spent on the county is done horribly. You say that capitalistic societies thrive but your basing that assumption off of the countries that originally started off capitalistic such as England, Holland, China, and so on. These countries work because it is capitalistic with social democratic policies (except China of course), however, these third world countries you speak of that are capitalistic are doing horribly because of us. I truely believe most people social democrats and free market thinkers like yourself really don't know what you want. You think you know what you want because you've been consistantly lied to by the ones you trust but until you transcend your knowledge passed what is easily provided to you, such as what Zay did, then you might get a better idea of what you want as a country....I'm still working on that part but I have a much better idea than I ever did.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it?

it's not broke for those in control of the WTO, G8, US, etc. It' broken for the rest of us.

One or two things - the countries you mention as being oh so great are also generally noted for relatively low levels of income inequality. Not saying that Human Development indexes and Gini coefficients go hand in hand all the time, but it's worth noting.

Since the 'services' in social democratic countries are generally funded through progressive income taxes, it might be arguable that direct income transfers (or simply more progressive taxes funding less spending) might be more of a good thing without the middle man.
It is worth thinking about income inequalities directly rather then trying to address them through government 'services'.

I can't help but think you've overemphasized the importance of 'spreading capitalism' during the cold war.
Norway for instance has a mixed economy, not merely a capitalist country with social democratic social policy - it was a founding member of NATO.

The overthrow of left leaning countries by the CIA would have been strategic cold war maneuvers. Sure they helped US companies get to the trough, but it isn't like the Soviets didn't pull the same sort of rubbish in their own way.
The Soviets were just more practical - Nasser in particular was amusing, a proponent of pan arab socialism and an ally of the Soviet union, he had 'godless' communists imprisoned.

Keynesian economics really isn't at all about minimum wages or any of that cute stuff either. More then anything it's about counter-cyclical fiscal and monetary policy.

It WAS the status quo until stagflation came along and from the look of it it's the status quo again with the US government.
Alan Greenspan, by 2001, was effectively a Keynesian.

The CIA trained, gave weapons to, and supported moves to overthrow popular dictators.

Out of the entire text, this is the only thing I disagree with.

Carlos Herrera, Jacobo Arbenz Guzman, João Goulart, Salvador Allende and Jaime Roldos were all democratically elected, not dictators.

Brilliant post by the way.

Ugh. Ok. A couple of points.

1. A free market does not rely on an "ignorant, controlled population". That's actually antithetical.

2. You don't understand the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. Educate yourself.

3. Your entire model of thinking seems based on the assumption that every single human being lacks the concept of earning things. It's a pretty crucial element of Capitalism.

4. Democracies do favor Socialism, and that's precisely the mechanism by which they destroy themselves. They last until they realize they can vote themselves money, and then it heads downhill.

5. Keynes was a fucking moron. Keynes was great at analyzing small parts of a problem, but failed epically at forming it into a coherent whole. His theory contradicts itself, and essentially consists of a panicked attempt maintain a balancing act with the assumption that that balancing act is necessary, just because, ignoring competent, historically tested theories on the business cycle that actually explain why it happens, not just what to do when you think the world is falling down around you for magical reasons beyond human comprehension.

6. Naomi Klein is a bald-faced liar, who had to flat out lie about time lines to make it seem like an ocean of blood was shed for capitalism. Her entire theory is based on the fact that one economist, once, at a conference, mentioned that it was possible to use significant social upheaval to institute economic changes. Further, you are also mistaken, or else a liar. Pinochet was not initially a capitalist. Those terrible economic conditions you listed were the case BEFORE Friedman flew down, and the staggering inflation rate pushed Pinochet to consider the advice of those of his people who supported capitalism. Friedman never endorsed him either, just figured that if he was running the country, it might as well be run competently. Today, Chile has one of the best economies in South/Central America, but don't let that stop you from distorting facts, or, more likely, taking Klein's lies at face value and thinking you're brilliant.

7. Germany had a free market? Hitler's dream of Germany was a place were socialism wasn't just economic, but a way of life. The relevant quote was something like "Socialize the hearts of the country, and who care who runs the factories?" Learn some fucking history that doesn't come from one, lying book.

8. CORPORATE WELFARE IS NOT CAPITALISM. CORPORATIONS USING GOVERNMENT FORCE TO MAKE A PROFIT IS NOT CAPITALISM. Both are antithetical to free-market capitalism. Get that into your thick, fucking skull.

9. The economic collapse happened because Greenspan lowered the interest rates to an absurd level, and kept them there far, far too long. No amount of regulation can negate cause and effect. You cannot oversight away consequence. The Austrians completely nailed this shit, calling it just like Mises called the Crash of 29, and I'm sure you'll refuse to even read what they have to say.

10. Dichromate is an idiot too. No, a gold standard is not perfect. It does, however, have more advantages, and fewer disadvantages than anything else. Maybe a nice dose of hyper-inflation will eventually convince you.

11. We do NOT have a free market. There are THOUSANDS of distortions. But every time those distortions cause a clusterfuck, tools like you come out to blame the supposedly "free" market. You can't explain how, just nebulous accusations of "greed". Greed is always there, it's been just as much a factor since the first ape traded a mammoth carcass for a nice rock as it was in the last 8 years. Blaming greed for the economic collapse is like punching a hole in a damn and blaming gravity.

12. You say that now is not the time to experiment with corporatism like thats now how we've operated for decades. Learn what the hell it means before you make 4 consecutive posts of uneducated bullshit.

And finally, the thing I clicked on this thread to say: Your opponents (Republicans) are brain-dead, proudly illiterate mouthbreathers. This does not mean that your side is correct. As always, reality will be the final judge, though I'm sure you'll accept poorly supported, idiotic falsehoods as Gospel about that, too.

So I'm an idiot huh.
Hyperinflation only happens if:
A: you create fuckloads of money
or
B: you loan money into existence, which inevitably requires you to loan more (see A)

What aspect of a fiat money system ensures this will happen?
Having a central bank that creates money through loans... yeah I can see how that can cause it, but what aspect of fiat money itself as opposed to hard money ensures hyperinflation?

If, as an example, government issues currency, increasing the money supply at a set, given rate (something around 3%), how will hyperinflation occur? Hell we can enshrine the rate of money growth constitutionally and still have fiat currency.

The US federal reserve is not the be all and end all of fiat currency for fuck sake.

my head hurts. :S

1. A free market does not rely on an "ignorant, controlled population". That's actually antithetical.

This. I believe that the people actually must be more adaptive to their environment, the economy, and to the wills of the "invisible hand". They need to perceive, predict and act in a manner which they can gain as much as possible while risking little or nothing at all.
3. Your entire model of thinking seems based on the assumption that every single human being lacks the concept of earning things. It's a pretty crucial element of Capitalism.

Although we are told that all men are created equal, and are supposed to be viewed by the law as equals, they are not guaranteed economic equality anywhere, they are told though, that they have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

7. Germany had a free market? Hitler's dream of Germany was a place were socialism wasn't just economic, but a way of life. The relevant quote was something like "Socialize the hearts of the country, and who care who runs the factories?" Learn some fucking history that doesn't come from one, lying book.
He ran as a NATIONAL SOCIALIST, and was a prominent member of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY, that doesn't sound like the name of a party full of free market capitalists to me.
Read Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg, I believe it will enlighten you and show you a different angle of history, one without as many civics class platitudes. Perhaps even The Revolution, by Ron Paul, and Conscience of a Conservative, by Barry Goldwater, you'll see a point of view which is often ignored, unjustly judged as fascist, and denounced by just about every left winger known to man without their knowledge of what it even is, except that it seems to be the opposite of them, and in its existence as that, is bad.

my head hurts. :S

*rubs stormshadowftb's head*

feel better now? :)

He ran as a NATIONAL SOCIALIST, and was a prominent member of the NATIONAL SOCIALIST GERMAN WORKERS PARTY, that doesn't sound like the name of a party full of free market capitalists to me.

Your logic is flawless! The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (aka. North Korea), must surely be the most democratic place on Earth... why it says so right in the name!

It was the Nationa Socialist German Workers Party because it made sense to call yourself a socialist when the vast majority of the working population were in aweful conditions (due to the rampant inflation during that time). It has nothing to do with actual socialist policies, since socialist, communists, anarchists and just leftists in general were among those sent to concentration camps as "undesirables".

It was the Nationa Socialist German Workers Party because it made sense to call yourself a socialist when the vast majority of the working population were in aweful conditions (due to the rampant inflation during that time). It has nothing to do with actual socialist policies, since socialist, communists, anarchists and just leftists in general were among those sent to concentration camps as "undesirables".
Well boy have I got something for you, I've got a copy of the actual nazi party platform (it's in the appendix of the book Liberal Fascism by Jonah Goldberg)

We demand that the state be charged first with providing for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens. If it is impossible to sustain the total population of the state, then the members of foreign nations (foreigners) are to be expelled from the Reich
Abolition of all unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of Rent Slavery
We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
We demand a division of profits [profit sharing] of heavy industry.
In my opinion these excerpts from the platform are damning, it's got to be socialist, because the government practically controlled industry and coerced it into doing the governments bidding. Had I included their public health promises it would be even more damning, but I think that through the "division of profits" (wealth redistribution), and the "nationalization of all (previous) associated industries", and even the general idea of the first quote, that the state is to provide for the people's well being comes awfully close to socialism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program
here you go, here's a copy for you, for the most part their program sounds quite socialist -> why it's called National SOCIALIST. It was made up mainly of former INTERNATIONAL SOCIALISTS who became disillusioned with the prospect of international socialism because of its seeming impossibility, so they decided that rather than go for a blanket approach they went with NATIONAL SOCIALISM, socialism to take one country at a time.

Did you even read what I said? I am not debating that they said they were socialists, and that they claimed to intend to implement socialist policies, which is the only thing their "platform" shows. In fact fact, I've already given you a great reason why they'd want to say that. The point I made, and which you've only made stronger, is that saying that they are socialist does not equal acting socialist.

Were the means of production in the hands of the workers? No. In fact, average real wages decreased and many of the working rights they enjoyed before hand (like the right to unionize as they wished) where removed completely.

Had you even bothered reading your own fucking source you'd see that it clearly proves my point. Among other things it says:

"Hitler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler) and the other leaders that would later play a major role in Nazi Germany (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Germany) were not involved in the creation of the original National Socialist programs, a fact which explains the differences between these programs and the actions of the German Nazi Party."and


".At the same time, however, Hitler never voiced public support for the program and many historians argue that he was in fact privately opposed to it. Hitler did not mention any of the planks of the National Socialist Program in his book, Mein Kampf (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mein_Kampf), and only talked about it in passing as "the so-called program of the movement".[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#cite_note-6) Henry A. Turner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ashby_Turner) holds that many of the program's vague calls for economic reform and pro-labor legislation, as well as its endorsement of democratic politics, went directly contrary to Hitler's own social Darwinist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism) views and dictatorial ambitions. Furthermore, he noted that the program's calls for land reform and anti-trust legislation threatened the interests of the big business tycoons whose support and funding Hitler was trying to acquire (though his efforts in this direction proved largely unsuccessful).[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#cite_note-7) Since he could not abolish the program entirely without causing a stir among the party's voters, Hitler chose to ban all discussion of it instead and hoped it would be largely forgotten.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Socialist_Program#cite_note-8)

Read your own damn source next time, and you wont make a complete utter fool of yourself.

It is this policy that stood for the classes becoming nearly non-existant in Nazi Germany (except the political and military elite):

Abolition of all unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of Rent Slavery

That basically means you cannot own something you haven't made with your own hands (which you CAN trade for money, but you cannot invest money and OWN the products made by it).

I don't like to call myself a nazi, but IMO it is THIS policy and that policy alone that is to blame for class seperation in modern countries. If you cannot own something you haven't produced with your own hands, there is no economical elite, and the only way to earn more money without being in politics or military is by actually producing stuff.

Whats the goal of socailism? Abolition of classes. Now the nazis might not technically be socialist in their ways, but anyone who aims at abolishing the classes is generally regarded as a socialist. Of course they didn't remove classes entirely, but thats within reason. All countries thoughout history have had atleast two elites, military and political. You simply cannot do without them. Even communist countries had them.

So whats so genious about the nazi way of abolishing classes compared to socialist and communist ways?
You can still become lower class, IF you don't produce anything at all (don't work). Unless you're crippled or elderly, this won't be the case, and I'm rather sure the nazis took care of the crippled and the elderly (aslong as one wasn't born crippled).

1. Did you not read the part of the article, the part I just quoted, which said that Nazi Germnay didn't implement many of those points? Yet you just pulled out of your ass that they did.

2. Socialism doesn't end social classes. There are social classes in socialism.

3. That statement doesn't mean what you think it does. It means abolishing things like inheretance. You can - and people in Nazi Germany certainly fucking did - "own" things they didn't create with their own hands.

So much so that they mention creating a robust social class in that very list!

--

P.S. I suggest we move the discussion to this thread before people start whining about de-railing the thread:

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2113145&page=2

Ugh. Ok. A couple of points.

1. A free market does not rely on an "ignorant, controlled population". That's actually antithetical.

A radically free and unregulated market does. There's a reason the least educated do the most menial jobs.

2. You don't understand the difference between Capitalism and Corporatism. Educate yourself.


Corporatism is a direct result of unregulated capitalism and the belief that the rich earn everything they make and shouldn't be kept in check.

3. Your entire model of thinking seems based on the assumption that every single human being lacks the concept of earning things. It's a pretty crucial element of Capitalism.

Actually it doesn't. I believe a social democracy should foster competition whenever possible.

4. Democracies do favor Socialism, and that's precisely the mechanism by which they destroy themselves. They last until they realize they can vote themselves money, and then it heads downhill.


They can also vote themselves out of disaster. This notion that a failing market should always be allowed to collapse leads to social chaos.

5. Keynes was a fucking moron. Keynes was great at analyzing small parts of a problem, but failed epically at forming it into a coherent whole. His theory contradicts itself, and essentially consists of a panicked attempt maintain a balancing act with the assumption that that balancing act is necessary, just because, ignoring competent, historically tested theories on the business cycle that actually explain why it happens, not just what to do when you think the world is falling down around you for magical reasons beyond human comprehension.


Keynes' beliefs are consistent with Adam Smith's. That is the belief in the basic social net and an education system.


6. Naomi Klein is a bald-faced liar, who had to flat out lie about time lines to make it seem like an ocean of blood was shed for capitalism. Her entire theory is based on the fact that one economist, once, at a conference, mentioned that it was possible to use significant social upheaval to institute economic changes. Further, you are also mistaken, or else a liar. Pinochet was not initially a capitalist. Those terrible economic conditions you listed were the case BEFORE Friedman flew down, and the staggering inflation rate pushed Pinochet to consider the advice of those of his people who supported capitalism. Friedman never endorsed him either, just figured that if he was running the country, it might as well be run competently. Today, Chile has one of the best economies in South/Central America, but don't let that stop you from distorting facts, or, more likely, taking Klein's lies at face value and thinking you're brilliant.

See, you could have left out that part of your post because is absolutely grade F low-quality bullshit. The Shock Doctrine paperback that I have has a 73-page bibliography and cites hundreds of sources. She used a team of researchers and dozens of individuals and consulted with lawyers, politicians, economists, even Jeffrey Sachs and primary sources. Nearly every paragraph cites a source. Her book is ridiculously thorough.

Also, you are grossly misinformed about chile.

Pinochet appointed several economists from the Chicago School of Economics. They were Friedman's students and Friedman's students' students.
When Friedman visited, Pinochet took his government cuts, spending cuts, and benefits slashing even further than was already in place, severely pushing the country into hyperinflation and higher unemployment.
Also, chile has one of the best economies precisely because it did a 180 and began to reverse Milton Friedman's policies and because pinochet fired a lot of chicago boys from their economic positions.

http://www.amazon.com/Pinochets-Economists-Economics-Historical-Perspectives/dp/0521451469



7. Germany had a free market? Hitler's dream of Germany was a place were socialism wasn't just economic, but a way of life. The relevant quote was something like "Socialize the hearts of the country, and who care who runs the factories?" Learn some fucking history that doesn't come from one, lying book.


This was already covered in this thread.

8. CORPORATE WELFARE IS NOT CAPITALISM. CORPORATIONS USING GOVERNMENT FORCE TO MAKE A PROFIT IS NOT CAPITALISM. Both are antithetical to free-market capitalism. Get that into your thick, fucking skull.


A little emotional, are we?


9. The economic collapse happened because Greenspan lowered the interest rates to an absurd level, and kept them there far, far too long. No amount of regulation can negate cause and effect. You cannot oversight away consequence. The Austrians completely nailed this shit, calling it just like Mises called the Crash of 29, and I'm sure you'll refuse to even read what they have to say.


It was caused by de-regulation, not over-regulation. The banks and mortgage resellers were trying to make the most profit possible. People were irresponsible with their purchases. Less regulation would have made this problem worse than it is.


10. Dichromate is an idiot too. No, a gold standard is not perfect. It does, however, have more advantages, and fewer disadvantages than anything else. Maybe a nice dose of hyper-inflation will eventually convince you.


The human population is growing exponentially and new gold discoveries are not. Gold limits growth and paper money is worth too little to effectively considering guaranteeing a spec of gold in exchange for every bill. Government, not the federal reserve, should control Fiat.


11. We do NOT have a free market. There are THOUSANDS of distortions. But every time those distortions cause a clusterfuck, tools like you come out to blame the supposedly "free" market. You can't explain how, just nebulous accusations of "greed". Greed is always there, it's been just as much a factor since the first ape traded a mammoth carcass for a nice rock as it was in the last 8 years. Blaming greed for the economic collapse is like punching a hole in a damn and blaming gravity.

Distortions is subjective. Those controls are damage control. Sure the distortions clusterfuck, but the other alternative is to let the invisible hand do the same thing.


12. You say that now is not the time to experiment with corporatism like thats now how we've operated for decades. Learn what the hell it means before you make 4 consecutive posts of uneducated bullshit.

The amount of money paid to privatize functions of the government to inefficient contractors has increased drastically under the Bush administration. In iraq and katrina the same group of contractors like Halliburton, Parsons, Fluor, Shaw, Bechtel, Blackwater(to protect FEMA workers) and CH2M Hill. While at the same time slashing budgets for social programs. They all charge more than what it would cost to have the government do the same function and the efficiency increase is debateable. Ron Paul and late Friedman would continue this trend onto police forces, fire departments, etc., quoting small individual cases like Sandy Springs georgia and use that as a model to argue that it could be applied efficiently everywhere. Whoever has the monopoly on force is the government, and I prefer elected school officials, elected police chiefs, and appointed fire chiefs, free of profit-demanding shareholder influence.

I admit though. Quoting palin, even for mockery, is not the best way to win at anything. :p


And finally, the thing I clicked on this thread to say: Your opponents (Republicans) are brain-dead, proudly illiterate mouthbreathers. This does not mean that your side is correct. As always, reality will be the final judge, though I'm sure you'll accept poorly supported, idiotic falsehoods as Gospel about that, too.

I'd prefer not socialism but a competition-based society with a more objective set of ethics based on science and mutually-beneficial human behavior, with complete lack of government thanks to a well-educated, rational and informed society ensuring the failure of any unethical company. Force would only be used in self-defense and not as government men with guns to take you from your home by force if you don't pay taxes. Out of the various forms of governments that we have see applied, however, social democracy takes the cake. Government action based on the wishes of constituents solidifies any actions started by boycotting, public awareness, protests, strikes, labor negotiations, etc.

Jesus, man. Discover the paragraph why don't you?

ZOMG anything you say is irrelevant because the government intervened.

Corporatism is a direct result of unregulated capitalism and the belief that the rich earn everything they make and shouldn't be kept in check.

How on earth can the government aid big business, if the government has no power to affect business? That makes absolutely no sense.

Keynes' beliefs are consistent with Adam Smith's.

Keynes' belief's changed with the tide.


See, you could have left out that part of your post because is absolutely grade F low-quality bullshit. The Shock Doctrine paperback that I have has a 73-page bibliography and cites hundreds of sources. She used a team of researchers and dozens of individuals and consulted with lawyers, politicians, economists, even Jeffrey Sachs and primary sources. Nearly every paragraph cites a source. Her book is ridiculously thorough.

Thats exactly why I call her a liar, instead of misinformed. She flat out lies about the timing of events, because reality doesn't coincide with her stated position. Look up WHEN Pinochet appointed those people, from a different source. Look up their inflation rates before, and after.

A little emotional, are we?

Caps was for emphasis, obviously needed, as you still fail to grasp this.

It was caused by de-regulation, not over-regulation. The banks and mortgage resellers were trying to make the most profit possible. People were irresponsible with their purchases. Less regulation would have made this problem worse than it is.

You still completely miss the point. Everyone is ALWAYS trying to make the most profit possible. That's not a cause, it's a constant. The direct, root cause of the crash was the massive lowering of interest rates. You say they were irresponsible, and people taking a long view would agree. But lowering the interest rates that much made those purchases, in the short term, seem not unwise. You're blaming ripples in the pond, and ignoring the rock thrown in.

The amount of money paid to privatize functions of the government to inefficient contractors has increased drastically under the Bush administration. In iraq and katrina the same group of contractors like Halliburton, Parsons, Fluor, Shaw, Bechtel, Blackwater(to protect FEMA workers) and CH2M Hill. While at the same time slashing budgets for social programs. They all charge more than what it would cost to have the government do the same function and the efficiency increase is debateable. Ron Paul and late Friedman would continue this trend onto police forces, fire departments, etc., quoting small individual cases like Sandy Springs georgia and use that as a model to argue that it could be applied efficiently everywhere. Whoever has the monopoly on force is the government, and I prefer elected school officials, elected police chiefs, and appointed fire chiefs, free of profit-demanding shareholder influence.

You presume I approve of anything Bush has done. I don't, and would argue that his corporatism is a bad as any socialism.

I'll respond to Dichromate and yourself on the gold issue thing in a bit.

You still completely miss the point. Everyone is ALWAYS trying to make the most profit possible. That's not a cause, it's a constant. The direct, root cause of the crash was the massive lowering of interest rates. You say they were irresponsible, and people taking a long view would agree. But lowering the interest rates that much made those purchases, in the short term, seem not unwise. You're blaming ripples in the pond, and ignoring the rock thrown in.

Sorry but that's just ridiculous reasoning. Nobody forced these people to make the purchases. Just because these purchases suddenly looked better because the interest rates lowered does not absolve them from responsibility.

We can use the analogy of an used car salesman selling a lemon. Just because the used car salesman lowered the cost for a potential buyer, thus incentivizing a bad deal, doesn't suddenly absolve the buyer from responsibility; 'caveat emptor' doesn't magically go out the window just because it seemed like a sweet deal at the time.

Sorry but that's just ridiculous reasoning. Nobody forced these people to make the purchases. Just because these purchases suddenly looked better because the interest rates lowered does not absolve them from responsibility.

We can use the analogy of an used car salesman selling a lemon. Just because the used car salesman lowered the cost for a potential buyer, thus incentivizing a bad deal, doesn't suddenly absolve the buyer from responsibility; 'caveat emptor' doesn't magically go out the window just because it seemed like a sweet deal at the time.

Oh, of course. I never said that. The people who failed to take a long, well researched view on this deserve to see their investments burn, or, more precisely, realize that their investments were never worthwhile in the first place. I opposed the bailout. I voted Obama, but ended up voting Republican for house and Senate purely on the issue of the bailout (my incumbent Democratic Senator voted for it, my incumbent Republican congressman voted against it.)

By all means people who made unwise purchases should own the results of their poor decisions. I'm arguing against the complaint that the current financial crisis as a whole was directly their responsibility, and that this is somehow a failure of the free market, when an underlying government intervention into the market was the root cause of the situation as a whole. This was a failure of an unfree market.

Did you even read what I said? I am not debating that they said they were socialists, and that they claimed to intend to implement socialist policies, which is the only thing their "platform" shows. In fact fact, I've already given you a great reason why they'd want to say that. The point I made, and which you've only made stronger, is that saying that they are socialist does not equal acting socialist.
Of Course they said and promised "brown before red". Socialism was supposed to be the final product. In fact when they wanted to expel foreigners (jews), from their living space, they had a massive public medicine program (they had their own war on smoking and cancer). There was plenty of socialism in their public health (or socialized medicine) program.
Read your own damn source next time, and you wont make a complete utter fool of yourself.
Reply With Quote
Hitler believed there was a Jewish conspiracy controlling capitalism, his belief was that if the jews were eliminated, this would go away and he could have his socialism. By the way this wasn't through social darwinism but through EUGENICS, they would use POSITIVE EUGENICS to promote "Aryans" to breed, and NEGATIVE EUGENICS to rid themselves of inferiors (Jews, Poles, Gypsies, etc.). Although he didn't really mention the National socialist program in Mein Kampf, it was because the book was mainly about HIMSELF (why the title translates to MY STRUGGLE). His appointees did implement Keynesian economics.
At first, Schacht continued the economic policies introduced by the government of Kurt von Schleicher in 1932 to combat the effects of the Great Depression. These policies were mostly Keynesian, relying on large public works programs supported by deficit spending — such as the construction of the Autobahn — to stimulate the economy and reduce unemployment (which stood at 30% in early 1933). There was major reduction in unemployment over the following years, while price controls prevented the recurrence of inflation. The economic policies of the Third Reich were in the beginning the brainchildren of Schacht, who assumed office as president of the central bank under Hitler in 1933, and became finance minister in the following year[3]. Schacht was one of the few finance ministers to take advantage of the freedom provided by the end of the gold standard to keep interest rates low and government budget deficits high, with massive public works funded by large budget deficits[3]. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Nazi_Germany#Wartime_policies:_1939.E2. 80.931945
The year 1936 also represented a turning point for German trade policy. Hjalmar Schacht was replaced in September 1936 by Hitler's lieutenant Hermann Goering, with a mandate to make Germany self-sufficient to fight a war within four years.[3] Under Goering imports were slashed. Wages and prices were controlled—under penalty of being sent to the concentration camp. Dividends were restricted to six percent on book capital. And strategic goals to be reached at all costs were declared: the construction of synthetic rubber plants, more steel plants, automatic textile factories.[3]
While the strict state intervention into the economy, and the massive rearmament policy, led to full employment during the 1930s, real wages in Germany dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938. [4] Trade unions were abolished, as well as collective bargaining and the right to strike. [8] The right to quit also disappeared: Labour books were introduced in 1935, and required the consent of the previous employer in order to be hired for another job. [8] In place of ordinary profit incentive to guide investment, investment was guided through regulation to accord with needs of the State. Government financing eventually came to dominate the investment process, which the proportion of private securities issued falling from over half of the total in 1933 and 1934 to approximately 10 percent in 1935–1938. Heavy taxes on profits limited self-financing of firms. The largest firms were mostly exempt from taxes on profits, however government control of these were extensive enough to leave "only the shell of private ownership." [29]
It's not capitalism, it's government interventionism gone wild, the government abolished trade unions and controlled the workforce -> command economics-> a key piece of socialism, communism, marxism and any other form of totalitarianism I missed.
2. Socialism doesn't end social classes. There are social classes in socialism.

Not ideally.
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism
that's why there's all the "class warfare" rhetoric on the left.
3. That statement doesn't mean what you think it does. It means abolishing things like inheretance. You can - and people in Nazi Germany certainly fucking did - "own" things they didn't create with their own hands.
It also meant limiting (with the hopes of abolishing) dividends from stock.
And another thing, easy with the insults, I may not always fully read the cited sources, but I can find more to back myself up. Point out the inconsistency and keep going, I don't have all day to wade through horse shit insults, while trying to have a rational debate.

Not ideally.

So when do the planners go away?

supperrfreek EDIT: I decided to reply in this other thread, just like I said, in order not to deraiil this one any further:

http://www.totse.com/community/showthread.php?t=2113145&page=2

I'm arguing against the complaint that the current financial crisis as a whole was directly their responsibility, and that this is somehow a failure of the free market, when an underlying government intervention into the market was the root cause of the situation as a whole. This was a failure of an unfree market.

Then you're making a trivial point.

People failing to take a long, well researched view on their investments is a phenomenon that still exists in free markets. Similarly, events that incentivize bad deals still exist in free markets.

So while you can say that this technically wasn't a free market, the important point is that this still tells us something about free markets.

Biologists study mutations in a lab; sometimes by artificially promoting them in a subject. However that they happened in the lab does not mean that they do not tell us something about mutations out in nature. They do.

Then you're making a trivial point.

People failing to take a long, well researched view on their investments is a phenomenon that still exists in free markets. Similarly, events that incentivize bad deals still exist in free markets.

How am I making a trivial point? This was not a failure of a free market. It was the result of a specific distortion of the market, which by definiton makes it not free. Considering the massive amount of blame being directed at the "free" market, I don't see how arguing against this is trivial. I similarly fail to see how pointing out that you made unwarranted assumptions about my position trivializes my point.

You claim I'm making a trivial point, then make a meaningless one yourself. Of course those things exist in a free market. That doesn't change the root cause of the current financial crisis.

So while you can say that this technically wasn't a free market, the important point is that this still tells us something about free markets.

No, it doesn't. It tells us somethings about specific distortions to the market, which by definition makes it unfree.

If you care to disagree, what exactly does this tell us?

How am I making a trivial point?

Easily, by arguing that this isn't a failure of the "free market". It's trivial in that people would agree, even Zay the person you're arguing against, that there are regulations in the U.S. market.

The point of saying this is a failure of the markets is one of showing how the roots of this failure - bad ("greedy" lets say) purchases/investments - and the results - millions of people being affected with no real safety net - would exist easily (if not worse in regards to the second matter) in the actual free market.

So essentially you're saying: "Does it have regulations, then the free market didn't fail!" ignoring that the important point is that it can fail just as badly.



If you care to disagree, what exactly does this tell us?

See above.

Easily, by arguing that this isn't a failure of the "free market". It's trivial in that people would agree, even Zay the person you're arguing against, that there are regulations in the U.S. market.

The point of saying this is a failure of the markets is one of showing how the roots of this failure - bad ("greedy" lets say) purchases/investments - and the results - millions of people being affected with no real safety net - would exist easily (if not worse in regards to the second matter) in the actual free market.

So essentially you're saying: "Does it have regulations, then the free market didn't fail!" ignoring that the important point is that it can fail just as badly.


You're completely failing to grasp the point. "Greed" has been a constant factor since the first caveman traded a pretty rock for a chunk of mammoth carcass. If greed is to blame, why are we not constantly in a state of wild economic downspinning? Blaming greed is like blaming gravity for falling: clearly it has some relevance, but would you causally blame gravity, or the object you tripped over?

And no, this could not have happened in a market that lacks a central bank (the Fed in the US). No single bank can expand the money supply enough to cause anything like this to happen. I know Marx just assumed the boom/bust happened with no causality beyond being, in some manner, a side effect of industrialization, but actual economists have developed theories to explain why it happens. Ricardo explained that it's a feature of banking, and the money supply cycle, and history validates him.

This could not happen in a free market, as a free market has no central bank.
This happens every time a market with a central bank lowers interest rates well below what the market would set, and keeps them there too long.

But you keep on failing to understand the point I'm making. If it's trivial, then stop bothering to respond.

Wait a moment - so whats the Austrian explanation for business cycles before 1913?
Yes, the fed is whacked, but there were recessions and even speculative bubbles long before its creation.

Then you're making a trivial point.

People failing to take a long, well researched view on their investments is a phenomenon that still exists in free markets. Similarly, events that incentivize bad deals still exist in free markets.

So while you can say that this technically wasn't a free market, the important point is that this still tells us something about free markets.

Biologists study mutations in a lab; sometimes by artificially promoting them in a subject. However that they happened in the lab does not mean that they do not tell us something about mutations out in nature. They do.

You're missing the fundamental point. When the governments changes the price system by artificially lowering interest rates below their natural rate, entrepreneurs cannot obtain the necessary knowledge about whether or not their investment will be profitable in the medium term. It is impossible for a single person or a group of people to know what the time preferences of billions of people are if the price system is distorted.

This is why we have a business cycle that occurs with frightening regularity. Nobody really knows if the Federal Reserve has "just the right discount rate." Nobody knows if an asset bubble is forming until it is too late. This is why we have a price system.

Wait a moment - so whats the Austrian explanation for business cycles before 1913?
Yes, the fed is whacked, but there were recessions and even speculative bubbles long before its creation.

There were central banks and fractional reserve banking before 1913. Other busts can be explained via various real events like government enforced monetary contraction in the late 19th century (Grant removing silver from the monetary system), though most pre-1913 panics can be attributed to fractional reserve banking (which was encouraged by government). See Rothbard's University of Columbia dissertation, Panic of 1819: Reactions and Policies (http://mises.org/books/panic1819.pdf).

You're completely failing to grasp the point. "Greed" has been a constant factor since the first caveman traded a pretty rock for a chunk of mammoth carcass. If greed is to blame, why are we not constantly in a state of wild economic downspinning? Blaming greed is like blaming gravity for falling: clearly it has some relevance, but would you causally blame gravity, or the object you tripped over?

I didn't fail to grasp anything I understand (and took without objection that hasty generalization of yours) that "greed has been a constant factor" always. That does not refute or invalidate my point. I didn't argue, nor does my point require, that "people must constatly be in a wild economic downspinning": Disease has also been a constant factor in human life... but I'm not sick right now.



And no, this could not have happened in a market that lacks a central bank (the Fed in the US). No single bank can expand the money supply enough to cause anything like this to happen.


Again, another trivial point:

Yes, things that required a single central bank cannot happen in a system that doesn't have a central bank. A pretty useless truism.

The fact remains that while you can say that in this particular scenario the central bank caused people to believe these bad purchases were worthwhile, events that can cause that very thing (i.e. events that incetivize bad investment/purchases) exist in the "free market".

To carry the disease analogy further, you're arguing that just because you're immune to smallpox, you can't have any disease. The point, like I said, of talking about the bad purchases is not to say that the U.S, has no regulations - I'm pretty sure Zay agrees that it does - it's to show the ramifications of this and similar events.

If it's trivial, then stop bothering to respond.

I would except you're making it out to be not trivial. That's a pretty compelling reason for me to continue.

Its really got nothing to do with central banking, booms and busts. Rather usury. There are other methods to obtaining houses and cars other then usury, and it would stabalize the market. No interest bullshit to worry about.

Also an end to land speculation would help. A law saying that its not allowed to own land you don't use. This would cause a huge decrease of value on land and houses, afterall land is ment to be lived on, farmed, and for production, not for a summer house or for its increasing value. There are people living on the street and teenagers unable to move from their parents house, still there are abondoned houses (due to investors waiting for its value to rise) and summer homes lived in a month a year.

Besides, it doesn't make sense in the first place being able to own land you don't live on.

^ Owning a percentage of the planet is ridiculous in its own right.

^ Owning a percentage of the planet is ridiculous in its own right.

I usually argue for what is natural. Naturally, we're nomads and live on a rather wide area. However, we'll still chase off foreign tribes if they attempt to wander the same area we do. Therefor, you should be allowed to own land, however you shouldn't be allowed to own land you don't wander upon.

I usually argue for what is natural. Naturally, we're nomads and live on a rather wide area. However, we'll still chase off foreign tribes if they attempt to wander the same area we do. Therefor, you should be allowed to own land, however you shouldn't be allowed to own land you don't wander upon.

Why do you worship the "natural"? This isn't natural, it's just ancient.

Why do you worship the "natural"? This isn't natural, it's just ancient.

I worship the natural because its what our biological component, the body, is suited for. Natural => Ancient in many cases, as I propose we live as modern as possible without giving up the way our minds and body have evolved biologically to the enviroment. Without the feeling that we own land, we cannot be content. Besides, owning land should be equivalent of living on it. I do not see any other way to organize it. But I do agree that it shouldn't be organized as traditional property.

Do you suggest the government owning all land and letting individuals have their own little share? Because then even though the government technically owns it, you live on it, so by other definition you own it.

Do you suggest the government owning all land and letting individuals have their own little share? Because then even though the government technically owns it, you live on it, so by other definition you own it.

I suggest nobody owning productive property. If you think the "natural" is best then I will never be content until I rape every female around me. Nomadic herding isn't natural, it's a compromise between "living modern" and "living ancient".

Doesn't intellectual evolution now supersede biological evolution in man and thus there's little use for the latter?

I suggest nobody owning productive property. If you think the "natural" is best then I will never be content until I rape every female around me. Nomadic herding isn't natural, it's a compromise between "living modern" and "living ancient".

Doesn't intellectual evolution now supersede biological evolution in man and thus there's little use for the latter?

Now I'm a bit confused on your definitions, however "productive property" you mean property where factories or other production utilities are set up?

But people have to live somewhere, so by saying "no you can't own this land" would just be kinda well stupid as then no one can live on that land.

Or maybe you mean it like communism? Where the people (the government) owns the land and individuals are just allowed to live on it?

Now I'm a bit confused on your definitions, however "productive property" you mean property where factories or other production utilities are set up?

But people have to live somewhere, so by saying "no you can't own this land" would just be kinda well stupid as then no one can live on that land.
Who owns the sun? Nobody. Who uses it? Everyone.

Or maybe you mean it like communism? Where the people (the government) owns the land and individuals are just allowed to live on it?

I'm afraid you're mistaken, in Communism there is no government.

It is impossible for a single person or a group of people to know what the time preferences of billions of people are if the price system is distorted.


It's impossbile to know when it's not "distorted" either. Your argument is completely ridiculous if you're trying to imply that uncertainty doesn't exist in a free market.

More importantly, your argument also fails because this doesn't excuse any of their actions. They not knowing is a great argument in favor of acting causiously.

If I turn the lights off in a room, don't tell me it's my fault when you hurt yourself because you started running around like a fucking maniac.

I'm afraid you're mistaken, in Communism there is no government.

In all the socalled "communist" regimes there has been a very strong government. If there is no government, its generally referred to as anarcho-communism. Even though marxist-communism was in reality much closer to anarcho-communism then any other form of communism.

In reality I think we agree on land, we just don't have common definitions on what makes you own it. I say by living on it you technically own it, while you that we're only allowed to use the land, not own it. So what defines property is the question, else we pretty much agree.

In all the socalled "communist" regimes there has been a very strong government. If there is no government, its generally referred to as anarcho-communism. Even though marxist-communism was in reality much closer to anarcho-communism then any other form of communism.
Great, that tells us a whole lot about anarcho-communism.

In reality I think we agree on land, we just don't have common definitions on what makes you own it. I say by living on it you technically own it, while you that we're only allowed to use the land, not own it. So what defines property is the question, else we pretty much agree.

Property is a fiction. What defines goblins?

Great, that tells us a whole lot about anarcho-communism.



Property is a fiction. What defines goblins?

Property isn't fiction. Property came along with nature. If you can manage to aquire and hold on to something, its your property, like a monkey holding a banana or a tiger peeing on land to indicate its his territory. The government's job is simply to give you the security that no one will take your property while you give up the freedom to hijack other people's property.

Property is a fiction. What defines goblins?

Property isn't a fiction to me, but thats because I'm not a penniless hippy!

(Obligatory Futurama)

Property isn't a fiction to me, but thats because I'm not a penniless hippy!

(Obligatory Futurama)

Heh, I saw that one. It proves nothing but I laughed pretty hard.

Property isn't fiction. Property came along with nature. If you can manage to aquire and hold on to something, its your property
So property is justified by force?
like a monkey holding a banana or a tiger peeing on land to indicate its his territory. The government's job is simply to give you the security that no one will take your property while you give up the freedom to hijack other people's property.

Nature only uses property as the means of survival. Only the human species uses it to enslave one another. Nobody disagrees with providing for the necessities for life if no other option is available, but that is not property, it's simply the use rather than the possession of product.

I'm sick of hearing people railing against the "Liberal Agenda", as if everybody who disagrees with them has gotten together and agreed on a single, concerted course of action to fuck up the country.

The Liberal media, the Liberal government, the Liberal lobbyists, etc, etc.

Fuck.

So property is justified by force?





Yes it is.

Yes it is.

Of course it is; I just wanted to hear it from him.

Of course it is; I just wanted to hear it from him.

Again, I agree with you here. Now the government ensures property, however I do not believe they should ensure property you wouldn't be able to keep in nature. Such as owning a factory in China while you live halfway across the world. That is just wrong, and allows exploitation of the worker. However, rules can be put in place to avoid this, you don't need communism.

Again, I agree with you here. Now the government ensures property, however I do not believe they should ensure property you wouldn't be able to keep in nature. Such as owning a factory in China while you live halfway across the world. That is just wrong, and allows exploitation of the worker. However, rules can be put in place to avoid this, you don't need communism.

So first you say that property is created and kept through force and then you say that there should be rules that allow you to keep the products of force?

So first you say that property is created and kept through force and then you say that there should be rules that allow you to keep the products of force?

Well, yes. There are rules that allow you to keep the products through force, however if you no not physically own the product, it should forcefully be taken away from you (such as just having a piece of paper saying you own a product in China, that shouldn't be possible, if you live elsewhere).

^And remember that "the rules" are enforced by the people with the most force.

^And remember that "the rules" are enforced by the people with the most force.

Not in a democracy, unless the people are stupid and allow the people able to force the most propaganda into their minds sway their vote. That only happens in the US though.

Not in a democracy, unless the people are stupid and allow the people able to force the most propaganda into their minds sway their vote. That only happens in the US though.

In terms of property they are. If you commit trespass or even try and take over another's property you will be reprimanded by the courts, backed up by the force of the elected government. Property has always been a concept enforced by the threat of physical force, it's just that nowadays the threat comes from an umbrella body rather than the individual.

In terms of property they are. If you commit trespass or even try and take over another's property you will be reprimanded by the courts, backed up by the force of the elected government. Property has always been a concept enforced by the threat of physical force, it's just that nowadays the threat comes from an umbrella body rather than the individual.

Well some argue thats the whole point of the government, to protect your property for you so you don't have to beat the living crap outta everyone who tries to take it from you. And no, you shouldn't be able to use another's property. Even if someone just owns a piece of land, never living there, not even visiting, just waiting for its value to rise, you shall still not squat there, as we have to respect the laws if we want to keep the order. And as of now, with modern democracies, we should fight the government by spreading awareness, not by civil disobedience, that will only make our cause look uncivilized.

I wasn't trying to insinuate it's a bad thing, just that it is what it is. Any pretense that ownership of property is an inalienable human right is exactly that.

Well, yes. There are rules that allow you to keep the products through force,

And you've yet to explain why.