what makes more sense to you and why: socialism or laissez-faire economics
Does anybody believe in Say's law, trust Keynes, or agree with central banking?
economics
what makes more sense to you and why: socialism or laissez-faire economics
Does anybody believe in Say's law, trust Keynes, or agree with central banking?
Centralized economies don't seem to function that efficiently, so I'd have to say laissez-fairre, though I prefer other decentralized sorts of economies, such as a participatory one in which people discuss economic issues locally and come to conclusions themselves on how to direct the economy rather than having an intellectual elite do so.
"To become is just like falling asleep. You never know exactly when it happens, the transition, the magic, and you think, if you could only recall that exact moment of crossing the line then you would understand everything; you would see it all"
"Angels dancing on the head of a pin dissolve into nothingness at the bedside of a dying child."
Edited for gayness.
imo a tendency toward decentralization (whether or not the system is actually decentralized) is best for long term stability whilst a tendency toward centralization (with the same above conditions) is best for short term flexibilty
I live and die for free enterprise. Those with the will to suceed do.
Demand sider!
The above was directed to Transigent.
That's competition, and it is a part of life. As for people getting ahead of others, you are going to get that anyway so it might as well be someone productive opposed to someone who just knows how to violate other people's rights.Originally Posted by Transigent
Governments do not produce anything efficiently (besides security) and eventually (due to statist dynamics) destroy the economy by things like price controls and manipulation of credit. So in the long run the best thing to do is seperate economy and state.
Currently, government is powerful because it can apply force on people, while in a free market people could become powerful by producing value that people are willing to accept.
power, like everything else, is earned, not given.
All backed by faith in the government's ability to use force to extract it from the populace, remember, value does not just come from nowhere. Also, inflation is caused by the federal reserve bank issuing fiat money, and is not a part of capitalism.
That problem arises from the initial credit expansion, which eventually has to be paid back plus interest. So in reality, the fed lowers interest rates by printing fait paper, creates a business cycle via inflation, the markets correct themselves by liquidating bad investments, and the interest rate actually rises in the long run, and there you have recession.
In this view, think about what caused the Great Depression and relate that to the 1990's and today.
I'm all about freedom. If there is a free market, ANYONE who wishes to suceed may. In a socialist economic setting, I would be extremely miserable. I would go as far as to say that life would not be nearly as worthwhile for me.
Now, I am not a materialistic person. I just recognize money for what it is. I find that the people who are the most materialistic, often the upper middle class, are generally the ones with the poorest conception of what money is.
I have a few personal philosophies about money, but the key is:
I do not work for money...
Money works for me!
I'm all about freedom too, Joy. I just don't like the Fed's manipulation of the money supply, which decreases the value of my savings. I also don't like having living expenses rise faster than the market can adjust to the price increases (i.e. "housing boom").
That is middle class talk, my friend. Savings and even IRAs and CDs generally do not earn more in interest than the rate of inflation. Savings should be for emergencies, not wealth accumulation. My money works for me, not sits around costing me because of taxes and the rate of inflation. If it cost me more than it was making for me it would not be a very good employee, or rather, I would not be a very good employer!
Yes, the ecomonics of this nation are messed up. That is why my interests are not limited to the Western Hemisphere.
So what you are saying is if you don't have starting capital FU?
This is my opinion about money and banking: It changes and adapts and evolves. just a fluid thing with advantages in some places and disadvantages in others. Those that seize the right opportunities and information at the right time get rewarded. Sometimes a hands off policy is good, sometimes communism or socialism works. it just depends.
I think that the world will lean more towards socialism in the future. a general blend between capitalism and communism. Social welfare and rewards for working will be definite things to expect. Gotta keep people happy because we are exposed to demands unlike any in history. The "quality of life" is easier, but the psychological impacts are great. Guess we'll see what happens. my guess is that we're going to descend into a dark age pretty soon with china and all. Epic.
Edited for gayness.
What I mean is the big budget they're spending on the military and the fact that there are like 7 men for every woman. hey, i could be wrong, but that's got bloodbath written all over it.
Edited for gayness.
yeah, china looks like a nice place with the culture you see in the movies and I read about at school. I'm sure growing up knowing you'll never have a wife does something to your mind though. Whatever it is I don't know, but it must be quite foreign and terrifying to us. It must generate a thirst for rape and pillage, even if it's unconscious for the time being.
Transigent said: I know very little of China aside from the "human rights" propaganda....
Of course you know they have very strict rules for having children. One child per family and you have to permission to have that child. Any other children will cost you a big fine. They can't feed the people they have now so they have to take desparate measures. You can't blame them.
My husband does business in China. They are desparate for power plants to generate electricity and are buying up coal especially from the USA. They are growing very rapidly and are very energy conscience. One of the things my husband markets there are energy-saving light fixtures made in Canada and also Canadian-made collapsable and moveable buildings for the military. Take a look at anything you buy anymore and notice how many things are made in China. Like my husband says, ask what isn't made in China.They want to Westernize and are building hospitals and my husband has put them in touch with local nursing colleges so they can send people here to educate. They are looking for sister-cities also. Maybe we should move there.
<--- Me pouring out all my love on you!
Some days its just not worth chewing through the restraints.
Actually, I rather dislike the history of culture in Asia
Actually, the ratio is 46% female, 54% male. (International average is 49% female 51% male)I'm sure growing up knowing you'll never have a wife does something to your mind though.
So about 14% of the males aren't matched up favorably. (or 86% less sex....) That is not too bad, it weeds out the weak I suppose. Although, 15% of American females are obese, so it probably isn't that different there.
I doubt it. The people that rape are either psychotic, or could "get some" anyway (like frat boys in college, or ghetto thugs runnin trains.)Whatever it is I don't know, but it must be quite foreign and terrifying to us. It must generate a thirst for rape and pillage, even if it's unconscious for the time being.
I love a good debate!
There can never be a purely communist or socialist economy, and a pure LF economy could exist, but never really has. We all know to be careful of who teaches history.Proper study of economics should not be a study of theory at all. It should be a study of history. Both LF and Socialist economies are unstable.That's competition, and it is a part of life. As for people getting ahead of others, you are going to get that anyway so it might as well be someone productive opposed to someone who just knows how to violate other people's rights.
again, be careful who teaches history.
true, but that is because of statist dynamics play a role.
nope, Government is distictly different from business: one has a monoply on force and the other has the goal of producing value.
There are entrepreneurs, and police chiefs, (really their job is to prevent value loss). There are a lot of unproductive “leaders” in the system; is that a good thing?I used to be just as idealistic, until I realized that there is no such thing as an Efficient Human System. This means that the powerful are NOT in the postions that they are based on "value production". If this were the case, just about all the scientific PhDs, and Mid-Level engineers would be leaders. In actuality, the leaders are culled from educations that promote only the organization of value, rather then the actual production of it.Currently, government is powerful because it can apply force on people, while in a free market people could become powerful by producing value that people are willing to accept.
[quote="Transigent"]
The correct derivation of power for Economic structures is means. They controll the means to live, and we must live by those rules. The very tiny seeds are beginning to become apparent today: (ex: Companies are starting to fire/not hire people due to "unhealthy living" like smoking or obesity.)
In the 1990's a topic of conversation was Companies testing your DNA before hiring you. Thankfully, technology says that this won't happen for another 40 or 50 years or so, but it WILL happen, and there will become a new class of people called the "Unemployables" who don't live exactly like the companies say that a person should live.
So, yes, companies are just as powerful as force by thier monopoly on means to live.[quote]
But they do not apply physical force like governments can. Ideally in capitalism businesses do not violate human rights, discrimination is not a violation of an individual right.
I don't have time right now to answer to the rest of this. I'll be back on Wednesday.
Edited for gayness.
Transigent, is it possible that you are actually an Intuitive-logical Introvert, even though you don't see Te in yourself as much? I'm about 95% sure that you're an Ni dominant type.
Edited for gayness.
Yup, that settles it, you're Ni dominant.Would it solidify your knowlege of this fact if I were to tell you that I already knew that what I wrote would lead to this conclusion?
Edited for gayness.
Ni.
Te.What methods does a person use that is particular to thier type,
Te/Ne.what methods does a person used that they have learned from somebody else,
Ni.and what types of things are implyed even in a message such as this?
Yes, that is the way government is now, but in theory, if individuals choose to have a system that allows for maximum production, than separating government (an institution that has a monopoly on force) and business people would be the way to go. This is highly idealistic because this would require people to think rationally and value benevolently.
But they do not apply physical force like governments can.No, if it is not physical force, it is incentive. If that is not it, than please explain more.So?
Look, I get the whole "force" thing, but if you want to understand things more, you have to realize the DERIVATIONS of force. There are many things that CREATE force other then government.
Force is derived from people; people are all the same. Never forget this.
Ideally in capitalism businesses do not violate human rights, discrimination is not a violation of an individual right.Individual rights opposed to collective rights. Lets see, individual rights is a condition that allows one to do anything one wants to without compromising the conscious will of another conscious or potentially conscious person. That means things like physical force, threatening the use of physical force, or fraud (i.e. paying someone money who promises to provide a service that they do not provide). Now of course we can find situations where a person may have to violate the rights of someone in order to prevent any loss of value (i.e. a police officer shooting an armed man who threatens to shoot a bystander). Yes yes yes, I know, Ayn Rand, Ayn RandThe term "human rights" is bullshit. It should be "crap we can put up with".
If you want to get technical, than yes, the Fed is a private institution, and the same thing for the IRS. Everybody notice that your tax return has a stamp on it? The whole government in a way is a corporation. But again, ideally if the government did not get involved in schemes to steal from the populace via taxes and inflation and did its only proper duty of protecting its citizens, then you could have maximum value production.News Flash: The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE INSTITUTION owned by PRIVATE BANKS, most of which are multinational/foriegn.
The Fed IS capitalism. If there was no "Fed", the banks would make thier own. Banks creating money have been the central point of economy ever since they were invented.
The firm’s decision to hire or fire someone should be their choice. As for the DNA and the “unemployables,” if this is an erroneous method for determining the value of a person, then that fad will eventually go away, but if hypothetically DNA testing could be a way to determining the value of a person, then it could be beneficial to the firm because there would not be any waste in time and training. The “unemployables” in this case will not be unemployed in a lz economy, they may however be employed at a lower paying jobs that reflect on their abilities.
Which is impossible given the state of humanity. Talking about "in theory" when discussing real-world social subjects is pointless. In these subjects, things that work "in theory" usually don't pan out. The "theory" usually forgets that people are unintellegent and selfish.
You mistakenly believe that government has the monopoly on force. If this was the case, then there would be ABSOLUTELY NO RECORD of any type of "revolution" because the people would have no force.No, if it is not physical force, it is incentive. If that is not it, than please explain more.
A HUGE part of deriving force comes from "moral right". If government is doing something that enough people believe is morally repugnant, then the "force" of government would disintegrate.
For instance, if the government told all the policeman to kill little babies, the policement wouldn't do it. If the government instituted laws instituting a minimum penalty of 50 years in prison for a single traffic ticket, cops would almost never give out the tickets, and prisons would start letting people "accidentaly" go free.
Justice and morality is where power comes from. Governments always need an "agent" with which to enforce the power, and people don't blindly follow orders.
Governments have a HUGE influence on what people consider to be "just" and "right", but this influence is NOT 100%.
Yeah, the IRS is a wierd thing. I think that courts have ruled it to be "voluntary"! Pretty funny.If you want to get technical, than yes, the Fed is a private institution, and the same thing for the IRS.
Although if the IRS disappeared, we would still recieve the same amount of G/S every year, they would just be more expensive...because the real "problem" (if there is one) is government spending. (Instead of IRS revenues, they would just borrow fiat money from the Fed.)
Yes, but realize that the population wants more from its government then just this. Nowadays, people EXPECT the Government to be thier "Daddy". This kind of thing costs money, and as we all know, money is the best catalyst for decay....But again, ideally if the government did not get involved in schemes to steal from the populace via taxes and inflation and did its only proper duty of protecting its citizens, then you could have maximum value production.
Yes, but this reduces the "practical freedom" of people.The firm’s decision to hire or fire someone should be their choice.
For instance, if the corporate scientists suddenly came up with a "study" that said that productivity for people with more then 2 kids decreased 50%, then people with 3 or more kids would have to take a pay cut.
I suppose it would be fair, but you have to realize that in the real-world, people are NOT THAT BRIGHT, and the "studys" that fuel corporate descisions are run by these people, and are OFTEN wrong or politically motivated.
There is NO such thing as unmolested facts in reality. If there was, then maybe you have a point, but there never will be, and decisions will always be based on these politicaly tainted facts.
You are still being too idealistic.As for the DNA and the “unemployables,” if hypothetically DNA testing could be a way to determining the value of a person, then it could be beneficial to the firm because there would not be any waste in time and training.
Suppose they survey companies to find the "successful" people, and find a gene for "success", and they start descriminating new hires based on this data. You would think that would be a good thing, until you realize that "success" is more based on how much people like you, and not how much you actually get done. (So there is a "like me" gene.)
So now you have a bunch of "likeable idiots" working in the economy, and they would NEVER KNOW how productive the economy WOULD be if the "unemployables" were to be employed.
So these "super-productive" "unemployables" would be cleaning shit out of bathrooms to live in a cardboard box, when they could be contributing to the growth of the economy.The “unemployables” in this case will not be unemployed in a lz economy, they may however be employed at a lower paying jobs that reflect on their abilities.
This is exaggerated, but I am trying to get the point through that buisness is in it to make MONEY and not necessarily to produce value.
NOT AT ALL!!!!
This is the information age. He who owns the knowledge owns the wealth. If want to be... say, a real estate investor, but have no cash or credit, learn everything you can and find deals. If the numbers make sense, finding a money partner should be easy.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote